MODESTY: Does it Matter?

Modesty.


Settle in. I've been ruminating on this one for months.

Lately, I've seen friends and family post opinions from one end of the spectrum (i.e. modesty in dress doesn't matter at all) to the other (i.e. why am I seeing women wear shorts 4 inches above their knees and where are their CAP SLEEVES?).

One of the greatest poisons that permeates LDS Church culture is righteousness measuring, or as I like to call it, pulling out The Righteous Meter. Righteous Meters are easy ways for church members to judge (key word) whether or not someone else is keeping the commandments following the rules. I draw this distinction because commandments are kept in ways that are difficult to judge from a glance, while rule-following is easily measured. I can't, for example, glance at someone and tell whether or not they're praying, reading their scriptures, or loving and serving others. But I can quite easily glance at someone and tell you right away if they're following "the rules" of modest dress set out by the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

Quickly scanning another member's clothes for a garment line and then drawing a conclusion about that person's standing with God based on whether or not you can find one, is another common Righteous Meter. I'm not coming at this from a "holier than thou" or an "I would never stoop so low" perspective. I used to be The World's Biggest Modesty Stickler. Growing up, I wore bermuda shorts every summer and never owned a tank top. I bought my homecoming and prom dresses in Utah so that they had sleeves and appropriate neck/back lines, and I turned my nose up at every Mormon girl not doing the same. I drew a DIRECT correlation between the length of a girl's sleeves/shorts to her righteousness and willingness to follow the commandments.

Having gone 10 years further into my life and actually seen whether or not I was right about my assumptions connecting modest dress with strength in the Gospel, I can say with confidence: I was completely wrong. Modest dress, as we like to define it in the Church, has nothing to do with righteousness. If anything, I was far less righteous for judging other girls than they were for not having long shorts and sleeves on their tops.


The definition of modesty:

I can (and will) go on about my opinions on the topic, but let's first jump to some facts. Here is the definition of modesty as defined by Google:

   Noun.
a. the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities
b. the quality of being relatively moderate, limited, or small in amount, rate, or level
c. behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency

   Dictionary.com:
1. the quality of being modest; freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.
2. regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.
3. simplicity; moderation

If these definitions aren't sufficient because they didn't come from the Church, I'll humor you:
     "Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to 'glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit.'" 

You'll notice modesty in dress is only mentioned briefly in these definitions. The core of modesty is to focus on "glorifying God" and not to focus on what you're wearing or even on YOU at all.


Have we been focusing on the easy Righteous Meter instead of applying the true principle?

(That's rhetorical, but I'm just going to jump in here and say YES, WE HAVE!)

The biggest point I want to make is that we have become pharisaic in our insistence of certain arbitrary dress standards that have changed before and will probably change again. This misplaced focus has diminished the true meaning of modesty and instead replaced it with an ugly judgmental attitude rampant throughout the Church.

The Pharisees wanted to keep the Sabbath Day holy. A righteous desire! To help them do this, they established a series of rules including a set number of steps you could walk, items you could and could not touch, etc. Sound familiar? (I'll help. Number of inches above your knee where your skirt should end. Whether or not a portion of your shoulder is visible.) When Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, they chastised him for breaking the Sabbath Day. But what is the purpose of the Sabbath Day? To glorify God, worship him, rest, and serve His children! Jesus was fulfilling the higher law of the Sabbath Day and more importantly, the true purpose of the gospel, though he was breaking "the rules." President Nelson recently re-focused the Church on the true meaning of the Sabbath Day, saying, "I learned from the scriptures that my conduct and my attitude on the Sabbath constituted a sign between me and my Heavenly Father.. I no longer needed lists of dos and don'ts."

The parallel to modesty is quite clear. Like Sabbath Day Observance, Modesty is a righteous principle. Dress standards are meant to help us accomplish part of what it means to be modest. But if we skirt-measure, become judging and unkind, and draw conclusions about other people's faith and righteousness, are we not completely missing the point? Just like the Pharisees, are we not ignoring the true meaning and purpose of modesty? Do we overlook someone's good works because we are too busy shaking our heads at her outfit?

     1 Samuel 16:7, "for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

What if we stop being so concerned about what everyone is wearing and instead put that energy towards loving and serving others? If you must judge, at least judge people for their characters (their ACTIONS in the lives) and not something so frivolous and meaningless as how much of their chests/backs/legs/shoulders are visible in their outfits.

Applying the principle of the Sabbath Day to the Modesty topic, the higher law would be, "What are you communicating with your speech, attitude, and appearance?" If this is the higher law, lists of dos and don'ts are no longer needed, and individuals may have different interpretations applying that principle. 


Modesty in Scripture:

Being modest is to avoid boastfulness, pride, attention-seeking, and indecency. Dress certainly is one of the ways you can be modest or immodest, but I would argue that it is only a small portion of true modesty.

(I could also argue that it's "drawing undue attention" to wear weird shorts that are way longer than your friends' shorts and not worn by anyone in your age group, but I know y'all won't go for that, so forget it.)

Let's look for some scriptural references to modesty.

     1. Timothy 2:9 - "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with brioded hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array,"
   
     2. Mormon 8:36 - "And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save only a few who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea even every one have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts."

The Timothy verse is the most detailed scripture regarding dress, but there are at least 10 others, all referencing pride and wearing "costly apparel" (reference). It's interesting that Timothy mentions "modest apparel" and clarifies by saying, "not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" instead of, "not with bare shoulders or upper legs."

I could not find a single scripture that referenced modesty in dress as it pertains to showing more or less skin. ALL scriptural references to dress are about avoiding "costly apparel" and not being prideful about fine clothing. Perhaps true immodesty in dress is actually showing off expensive clothes, not showing shoulders. The scriptures would certainly lead us to believe so.


But isn't it important to be respectful of others and yourself by not showing off a lot of skin? Yes. This is where I subscribe to the "wear what is appropriate for the occasion" philosophy. If you are going to a professional office, it is absolutely inappropriate and immodest to wear a miniskirt and a tank top. It draws "undue attention" and is "indecent" in that setting. But can you wear a miniskirt and tank top to a barbecue in July? Sure! In that setting, it would neither be indecent nor draw undue attention, because in our current time and society, that is a normal and appropriate outfit to wear to a barbecue. Can you wear a bikini to that barbecue? No, that would be indecent and would draw undue attention. Can you wear a bikini to the beach? Yes! In today's time and society, a bikini is a normal and appropriate swimwear option. You get the point.

I am not advising anyone to go out and buy the skimpiest bikini you can find. That would indeed be seeking "undue attention," right? I am instead pointing out that it's time for us to re-think how we view modesty as a whole and to allow people to make choices based on their consciences and the true meaning of modesty instead of a list of rules that can quickly become outdated and requires no earnest thought. For example, since bikinis are accepted, even traditional standards of swimwear in 2019, some styles could be worn modestly while there are certainly some other bikinis - and one pieces! - that would be indecent and immodest. It's all about thoughtfully applying principles.


But the Lord's standards never change! Yes they do. In the 1965 version of the For The Strength of Youth pamphlet, it states, "Pants for young women are not desirable attire for shopping, at school, in the library, or in cafeterias or restaurants." Pants. Wearing pants was called out as inappropriate for women. That was only 54 years ago. Also, let's not forget that the temple garment used to be ankle and wrist length. The "Lord's" standards do change. They have always changed, and frankly, it's probably time they change again.

In the 1800s, if a woman were to walk down the street in a knee length skirt, I cannot imagine the horror that would ensue from passers by. How disgusting! How indecent! Who raised her?? Even baring an ankle was a risque, attention-seeking move. However, now a knee length skirt is considered incredibly conservative and bare ankles are negligible. As the world's perception of calf and knee length skirts shifted, so did the Church's. Now, it's time to accept that that shift is happening again.

Some might argue that the Church should go contrary to the world's standards. This fight against the world has more to do with laws, covenants, and actual real doctrine, not something as variable and temporary as dress norms.

In today's world, it's not edgy or risque to wear mid-thigh shorts or dresses. It's not indecent or attention-seeking to wear a tank top. Just the other day, I was watching a video of a woman talking about her summer wardrobe and she said, "I love these shorts because they cover a lot and they're modest." They were mid-to-upper thigh length. All of my very conservative, modest, Christian friends growing up wore short shorts and tank tops though they were not the kinds of girls to seek attention through their clothing. And they weren't seeking attention. They were dressing for the seasons and occasions. As we all should.

Now, in 2019, indecent clothing would probably be showing extreme cleavage or part of a butt.


But if the people won't even follow small rules, how can they follow the big commandments? Oh man, how I wish it was this simple. How I wish that if you just wore knee-length skirts, you'd never have an issue with the law of chastity. How I wish that if you never drank coffee, you'd never be tempted to steal or lie or cheat. In theory, this "small rules = big commandments" idea sounds great. In actuality, it is a gross oversimplification. I could give you example after example of "good girls" who dressed modestly and still had trouble with sexual boundaries. Small rules do not equal big rules. Sure, maybe it's beneficial to practice obedience and acting in faith on arbitrary rules that don't really matter, but bottom line - it's not the same.


But we must protect the men's thoughts! Many others have covered this, but I'll just reiterate real quick: it is not a woman's responsibility or within her power to control a man's thoughts. Men must take accountability for their own thoughts and actions. Part of that thought control is not over-sexualizing the female body. Breasts are functional body parts for the feeding of babies. Butts are for sitting on and expelling waste. Legs, for walking. Now, more than ever, people have access to pornography and the sexualization and objectification of the female body, for free, whenever they want, at the click of a button. All of the effort towards getting women to change their dress should be directed at helping our men (and women) navigate technology and the actual world without falling into the trap of pornography-led thought patterns and behavior. Women's only responsibility in this as it pertains to dress is the same as men's responsibility: to dress in a way that is appropriate for the environment and the occasion and to apply the principle of modesty in a way that feels right to them.


But it's a commandment! No it's not. There are laws of God, then there are doctrines, then there are principles, then there are applications of principles. Rules of dress are an application of a principle.


But garments! Garments are a whole other blog post, but I'll only address it here by saying that it's not anyone's business how anyone else chooses to wear their reminder of their covenants, and garments fit everyone differently. Why is it okay to ask people what underwear they're wearing or to try to see for yourself? Why do you want to know? So you can judge their standing in the Church?

This brings me to my final point: we have bigger fish to fry, folks. Seriously. Stop the skirt-measuring and garment-scanning and let's focus on raising a generation of children and adults than can navigate this world with good moral values, treat others with love, and serve God and their families. That's what matters.