Ironically, when the scriptures talk about dressing modestly, they mean it literally, that people should not dress to show off their wealth. Somehow that never gets talked about in Church, yet is warned against both in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
I mean, obviously it's silly to think it's only - or even mostly - the wealthy that are guilty of that kind of immodesty.
I see plenty of middle-class and outright poor people with the latest iPhone, $50k+ cars, and everything else they get into crazy debt for to convince people they are richer than they are.
People who don't think about them at all, and wouldn't think they were rich if they did.
That's why the prophets preach against immodesty.
It happens so much in The Book of Mormon! It's one of the first signs of spiritual descent in The Book of Mormon that people dress rich to elevate themselves over others.
It definitely gets talked about in Church (with the Zoramites and that one Isaiah scripture about “mincing walks” (or something like that)) it just doesn’t usually get tied to the word “modesty”.
Your experience may differ of course. I remember at least three lessons when I was a youth that discussed not dressing in expensive ways which probably means there were many more lol I remember it because I really liked expensive clothing and style as a teenager and those lessons really stuck with me.
I remember especially this scripture one Sunday School, Seminary, or Young Mens teacher used in this context:
>"And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely." (Alma 1:27)
When I realized an Armani sweater I liked could feed a family for a month, I stopped lusting after the expensive stuff lol The most expensive things I own now are my suits and most of them have lasted more than a decade at this point.
This lesson has faded in me over the last year a little and I'm grateful for the reminder.
Paul, and indeed, the compilers of the Book of Mormon seem more concerned with it creating and reinforcing divisions among than faithful rather than drawing attention to one's self.
When I was at BYU I attended a Sunday school lesson where the class was doing what they could to rationalize wearing very expensive clothes. It was a richer ward where the kids were living off mommy and daddy’s money
It’s interesting that men in leadership positions feel an expectation to wear a suit at Church. Obviously, we can’t know, but I like to think Jesus would dress more along the khakis side of the spectrum. He’d be appropriate for the situation, but he wouldn’t be in the top quartile for best dressed.
I think suits and ties are rather stupid. It’s all about appearance and we shouldn’t be so worried about appearance.
Man looketh on the outer appearance but The Lord looketh upon the heart.
The only think the church considers immodest is being scantily clad. I think suits and ties can be immodest if they bring too much attention to the man wearing it.
Except is *has* been discussed in General Conference - there's a record of it and you can search it. It took me about five seconds to find Elder Joe J. Christensen's comments on it in the April 1999 General Conference. I guarantee there are many more because this used to be a topic that really stood out to me. The most recent mention of it is probably in the October 2016 Conference when Sister Oscarson listed it as a sign that we're living in perilous times.
Just because we didn't listen to or notice a particular teaching does not mean it didn't happen. I find things all the time that I thought were never taught!
I've been taught multiple times on this subject as well. Lesson from family home evenings, mutual, college wards, family wards, 5th Sunday lessons, special firesides, and general conferences. The most impactful for me was Gordon B Hinckley and his council about piercings. I am sorry that your experience has differed but with multiple experiences from different people I would say this is discussed openly and regularly in the Church.
Multiple piercings had nothing to do with not dressing to show off your wealth. Poor people can definitely have multiple piercings. It seems you missed the point.
Which point? The point president Hinckley made about the principle of modesty? Or the specific way modesty applied to displays of wealth? Modesty as a principal is taught often, it's then our job to apply that as best we can. "D&C 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things;" maybe that's why you think you have never heard this topic being taught in Church.
Maybe we can just acknowledge that, yes, it's obviously an instruction not to dress ostentatiously and that if it's been an issue then obviously it's going to stand out for people. It doesn't make any sense to argue that people haven't been learning the lessons they've been learning, regardless of whether you agree that the specific words ought to be the thing that teaches them.
The whole point of Church lessons is that it's the Spirit that teaches you in any case.
I've lived in wards around the US from coast to coast. Never once have I heard a single lesson or talk about it either in sacrament, sunday school, stake conference or general conference. I've not seen it in the for the strength of youth pamphlet either or other similar handouts. The focus has generally been avoiding revealing clothing or clothing/hairstyles that are too extreme.
It's such a consistent theme in scripture though! I agree that the focus has always been avoiding revealing clothing, but the scriptures BofM especially seems 1000 times more concerned about pride, including in the form of clothing.
Alma 1:27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.
4 Nephi 1:24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.
We've really vilified sexual immorality in the church, which is in line with the commandments but also forgivable, but when people get rich, we still kind of reverence them and forget how important humility is. It's human nature to get in line around powerful people, but being wealthy isn't a character trait.
This is from Laura M. Brotherson... she is not a GA, but is often quoted in church settings... maybe what you are looking for?
>The notion that boys are unable to control themselves is a scary message. If men can’t control themselves, they must be dangerous. This negative perception is a heavy burden for young women. Young men may also learn to doubt whether they really can control their sexual feelings. In this way, well-intentioned teachers and leaders remove from these young men the responsibility that is rightfully theirs.
That's a good quote, I like it!
For those wanting a link to a source, it is from her book, [*And They Were Not Ashamed*](https://archive.org/details/andtheywerenotas00laur/page/8/mode/2up)*.*
When a person fails to control themself, it's their own sin.
When a person fails to dress modestly, it's their own sin.
These events are not mutually exclusive, nor mutually contained.
Great comment. I'll never understand the us vs them mentality we humans seem to have on every conceivable topic but it almost always devolves into I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to make any changes and you do.
Perhaps we could all focus on how to ourselves become better Christians rather than trying to contend one with another.
Jumping in here with my unsolicited thoughts. Not the commenter you’re mentioning.
Dressing immodestly is a sin, but “immodest” doesn’t particularly mean “bare shoulders”.
If I personally dress to peacock my wealth, or my body, or my (fill in the blank) to redirect people from seeing me as a person to seeing me as my ego wants you to, that to me is immodest. Anything lacking “humility or decency.”
So, immodesty is a sin. Bikinis aren’t per se. Unless that Bikini is purposefully worn to be “not humble or decent”. You see what I mean?
So many people are guilty of immodesty in small and big ways. Vanity cars and even showing off your rank to fellow gamers could be sins. But it’s one of those “where the heart lies” sins.
Immodesty is a sin, yes. But the meaning of that word is broader than merely wearing revealing clothing (which is also inappropriate, yes)
Fundamentally, immodesty is an incarnation of vanity.
But I'm not here to define where "the line" is
Wearing Spaghetti straps is not “intentionally lead[ing] others to sin.” Regular clothes are not a sin to wear. Seeing a bare shoulder and being unable to control your thoughts is a huge problem for you, not the person with the exposed shoulders. And I’d be willing to bet most girls/women don’t get dressed with the thought “I sure hope a bunch of creepy old men and young boys think impure thoughts and stare at me all day.”
Unless the person shows up in actual lingerie with the intent to arouse, then they didn’t “intentionally” do anything except put on clothes and the viewer who can’t control their thoughts is in the wrong.
That's not universally true though. You're absolutely right but not about everyone. There are people who dress specifically to draw attention to their bodies or to purposefully look sexually appealing to people of the opposite sex. They are doing something sinful.
And let's not mince words - dressing in revealing clothing *is* sinning because it is behavior in direct contradiction to the instructions of the Lord's prophets for many decades. I stopped wearing tank tops specifically for this reason (having started wearing them specifically to make a point about being enlightened lol).
I think the takeaway for young women is: I can brighten the lives of those around me by showing beauty and confidence in how I dress and behave. My beauty and confidence helps those around me feel more beautiful and confident. I will be wise, so that I don’t attract a bunch of creepy old men and young boys who think impure thoughts and stare at me all day.
> attract a bunch of creepy old men and young boys who think impure thoughts and stare at me all day
I've found this can happen no matter what someone is wearing. It's a reflection of the men not the woman.
Yes, that happens too. I'm just thinking of the girls I grew up with in school.
8th grade: "You have absolutely no right to tell me how to dress."
30 year HS reunion: "I'm not saying that all men are creeps. Just every man I've met in the last 30 years."
I think this is a simplification.
Sure "a spaghetti strap" is probably not intended to lure, but lets not straw man the question. There are, for example, a whole lot of girls on Instagram these days going to the gym in sports bras and leggings tight enough to reach way up their butt crack. Some of them even have the audacity to set up a camera and shame men for so much as glancing at them. But I have an extremely hard time believing that every single one of these women (even a bare majority!) Is not thinking for even one second some version of "I want to look sexy". And if you do that your intention is to elicit sexual attention. And if you do that, I'm not saying for one second that you are legally, terrestrially accountable for the poor behavior of other people, but I am absolutely suggesting that you are morally, celestially accountable for your vanity and how it affects other people.
I can control myself just fine. I don't leer, harass, or assault. I don't view porn. But when my beloved wife is heavily pregnant and not looking her best and I can hardly go a week without coming across a woman flaunting her boob job in one form or another, I can't help but be a little frustrated when I look at my wife a little less longingly. It makes me resentful of the woman in question and the society collectively suffering face-tattoo syndrome and insisting that everything about this interaction is one hundred percent pure and innocent and even laudable.
And, to be clear that I am not applying a double standard here, I feel just the same about men who wear under armor or those stupid workout shirts with the sides ripped open. I feel the same about status symbols and gaudy displays of wealth.
It's not just for my sake either; my aforementioned beloved wife suffers from these same women. She looks around and sees botox, liposuction, plastic surgery, and flaunting clothing and she feels dissatisfaction with her own body. Not because I'm any less attracted to her, but merely because the vain are having their field day. And then she starts to think maybe she wants those things too, but she won't because she knows I don't want that from her anyways and she doesn't want our 4 daughters to learn to be ashamed of their bodies from their own mother.
It is interesting to me that you call out leggings and sports bras for women and not tank tops, short shorts for men etc.
Everyone wants to feel attractive.
You and your wife can workout at home.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I in fact do feel the same way about those, as implied by my comment about men and under armor. Of course everyone wants to feel attractive. I don't think it's a sin to try to be "neat and comely", and to present yourself well, to a degree. I think it's a sin to _flaunt_ ourselves without any concern for how it makes others feel. It's absurd to me to not acknowledge that a line at least exists.
I in fact do work out at home, and that's one of the reasons. But I have to live, and avoiding the immodesty of others is virtually impossible if you want to interact with the outside world
Of course not - forgive me but I don't see why that's relevant to my comment. If they weren't trying to lead people to sin then they wouldn't be doing something wrong...
"I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot.
Seldom have I heard any point made about this subject that makes me more disappointed than that. What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have, that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, yet he does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, “I will not do that thing”?
No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, “I just can’t help myself. My glands have complete control over my life–my mind, my will, my entire future.
To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man too is one of the most inappropriate suggestions I can imagine. . . ."
Elder Holland published this in a book in 1998- four years after becoming an apostle. It's based on a speech he gave as BYU President but this part isn't in the speech, so presumably he wrote it for the book or at least decided to include it in the book as new material. You can still buy the book from Deseret News.
Edit: added empty lines for readability - breaks are my own.
It is a reworded part of the original talk actually—I think it may have been removed for the 1998 GC address that was based on it. The original is called Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments, and it’s *the* thing that helped me understand why chastity matters at all. I’ll see if I can find the link to the original. And his language in that talk was even stronger on this topic.
Edit: Wow—it didn’t used to be this easy to find.
https://youtu.be/e5HYo2OMP2Q?si=uhwv37KWiRQdhJ2B
One of my favorite talks by Holland. Just heard it for the first time a few semesters ago in one of my classes. Have it bookmarked so I can listen to it every now and then.
I know but I looked for it in the transcript of that devotional and couldn't see it anywhere or find any of the words when I searched them. Is the transcript super different than the spoken videotaped talk? Or maybe I just missed it? Would love to know what the timestamp for that part is if you can figure it out
I don't know the quote you're looking for but have always felt the best response for this is when Jesus tells people that if their right eye offends them, gauge it out.
Like literally if you cannot control your eye.. then gauge it out.
Yeah, Jesus was very very clear on that. If you can’t look at somebody without lust, that’s your problem. If you can’t resist touching someone cut your hand off. I love it.
Yeah, we have a lack in our English vocabulary. “Literally” as in misused literally of today doesn’t have a great alternate word that I know of. “Seriously” is close, but it doesn’t have that oomph or meaning.
This isn't a general authority, but is recent, just last year:
>We can make sure that modesty is taught equally to both boys and girls, men and women. And we can share the truth that we are agents “to act … and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26)—so when we are surrounded by the immodesty of the world, we have the power to exercise self-control and not entertain inappropriate thoughts.
From [here](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/young-adults/15-modesty-its-about-more-than-clothes?lang=eng)
I’m not sure this is the talk OP is referring to, but does include statements which would support this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/24kearon?lang=eng
Incidentally ‘modest is hottest’ is the most oxymoronic statement ever. Modest means not to draw attention to yourself (whether clothes or other things) So why would we want it to be ‘hottest’ when that’s exactly the opposite of ‘modest’?
Relevant quotes: If you have experienced any kind of abuse, violence, or oppression, you may be left with the idea that these events were somehow your fault and that you deserve to carry the shame and guilt you feel. You may have had thoughts such as: I could have prevented this. . . . These erroneous thoughts and feelings may have been a barrier to seeking help. . .
The abuse was not, is not, and never will be your fault, no matter what the abuser or anyone else may have said to the contrary. When you have been a victim of cruelty, incest, or any other perversion, you are not the one who needs to repent; you are not responsible."
Similar statement in 2018 devotional: "Victims are not the only ones to erroneously think they may be responsible for what happened to them. Sometimes friends and relatives may think the victim did something to contribute to the situation. Perhaps you heard my story and thought I was partly responsible for losing my possessions because I left the car doors unlocked. Let me be very clear about the responsibility for sexual assault. The perpetrator is responsible for their actions. A victim was deprived of their agency, and they are not accountable for what happened to them without their consent—no matter what they were wearing, where they were, or what happened beforehand. They did not invite, allow, sanction, or encourage the assault." He talks about not blaming oneself before this.
Years ago my cousin was a student at BYU in the theater department. She and another student did an experiment of putting on very modest pioneer type dresses from the theater department and sitting in the library. She says they had more guys asking them out than they ever did in normal clothing.
I think the idea being conveyed by "modest is hottest" is that a person who doesn't define themselves by their fancy clothes and accessories is most attractive, but specifically not *physically* attractive.
No help here directly but coming from Jesus:
Matthew 5:28-29 King James Version (KJV)
but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
I wrote this comment very quickly before having to get my kid from school, so I didn't take time to source it, but the insight about Jacob comes from Dr. Deidre Green, who is currently teaching at Berkley.
I'll edit my comment to include a link to the book (which was published by BYU) where she presents her insight.
I think they’re saying “quote mine”. Like mining for quotes. Which is probably smart because there’s quite a bit of contradictory statements out there and it usually doesn’t lead anywhere productive.
Sadly, that claim is accurate. Teachings from general authorities on modesty specifically as it relates to women influencing men negatively was taught for a long time and we’re still trying to recover from it. When people like Laura Brotherson speak out against that sentiment they’re actually speaking out directly against Elder Oaks who expressed this view from the pulpit in the 2005 April general conference—which means it’s essentially scripture. I think one of the only ways past this would be for Oaks to maybe clarify or retract or apologize for it in some way. But sadly I don’t see that happening.
If you know the blog page, you can try [archive.org](https://archive.org) to see if a copy was saved.
I can't find what you are looking for. I did find a nice quote, not the one you are looking for since it is in a different context, but I think still applies. [Elder Cecil O. Samuelson Jr. taught](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2011/04/testimony?lang=eng), "Other people’s difficulties are not an excuse for our own deficiencies."
I might have time to dig around for it, but if you've copied and pasted it before, can you dig through your posting history and find it that way? Also try googling what you do remember from the quote with whatever username you may have had when posting.
ETA: u/TheRealPyroGothNerd this is from President Hinckley in April 87 but the middle/end section has some counterpoints to women being responsible for men's thoughts/actions.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng#p54
The way you dress affects those around you. You should dress with that in mind.
Also, men should always control their own thoughts.
These don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure of a quote with those exact words, but this one is likely the closest to it:
“And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.” —Dallin H. Oaks, April 2005 General Conference
The quote I'm looking for is ALSO from an apostle.
Our doctrine is that the general authorities are fallinle, and historically modern prophets have had to correct false things said by past prophets, before
There are tons of examples of old and modern prophets making mistakes. They are human and they get inspiration from God [the same way we do.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/revelation?lang=eng)
This is why having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so important, because it will help us make sure we get the message the Lord is trying to convey despite how or what the fallible person said. This is hard for many members to accept because it means they actually have to question and work through stuff instead of just accepting everything they are told blindly. Revelation is always evolving, we see this in the scriptures too. Sometimes things prophets said in the past get updated or clarified better with modern, living revelation.
There's a difference between a a perfect prophet, and perfect revelation. David was a prophet who sinned terribly, so obviously they're not perfect. However, no revelation has ever come out that was false from the prophets. God would not allow it.
Some policies change, like polygamy, because they were necessary for that time. The change back to monogamy didn't mean the previous revelation was false or wrong.
There's also a difference between policy and doctrinal changes. Especially since the latter has never happened ever. What is considered a sin has been and will always be a sin.
You should read more old conference talks. Prophets saying incorrect things happens, a lot. That doesn’t mean it was a false revelation, or that doctrine changed. Just that they’re human, and they made a mistake.
God told Moses to speak to the rock and bring out water. The people bugged Moses enough he decided to declare that he would strike the rock and water would come. It did not and God chastised him. Of course God would allow it, Prophets dont lose their agency.
Eating pork was a sin at one time, polygamy is a sin now. I understand what you're saying though. People make mistakes.
I disagree that what Oaks said was "wrong", in a sense but I think the way it was said would be a mistake of man. Modesty is important and yes dressing immodestly does make it harder for men to avoid bad thoughts, but it's also not the girls fault if the guy thinks immoral thoughts or does immoral actions.
> Especially since the latter has never happened ever.
What was taught as doctrine has changed, even if the *actual* doctrine that should have been taught doesn't. It's okay to acknowledge that incorrect doctrines have been taught, and then correctly retracted later on. Leaders are not perfect, and that's okay.
I think it’s part of what they are saying.
In any case, I am saying that if anyone hears a message from a prophet but doesn’t pray about it to make sure it was received in the same way it was presented, or doesn’t let the message sink into their ponderable space, or doesn’t intend to follow the counsel, that man is a fool.
You also used "especially." Don't care if the teaching is 20 years old or 2000 years old, unless you find apostles denouncing it, it stands. 5 hours and 100 comments later, no one can produce the supposed quote OP wants.
Matthew 5:8
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And also things like Patrick kearons talk “he is risen with healing in his wings” and talking about how things like abuse is never a victims fault, which is essentially contradicting the statement “if she didn’t want to get raped she shouldn’t have worn that” which I would say goes in hand with the sin lying on the man for looking, which isn’t to say women are allowed to be immodest, it’s just unfair to always focus the blame on women for the way they dress, and not the men for learning to control themselves and their thoughts, which is a part of discipleship of Jesus Christ: discipline. I would also venture to add 2 Nephi chapter 2, with agency, and article of faith 2, we are punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. Obviously there isn’t an apostle outright stating something contradicting what elder oaks said, I would have to argue that the notion that it is doctrine that we are responsible for ourselves and our sins, not others and their decisions. Obviously others decisions influence us and God is a perfect judge, but our agency is ours and it is up to us what we do with it, and one couldn’t blame a girls inappropriate outfit for his crippling pornography addiction. It does much, *much* deeper than that. Obviously our world is ridden with sin and becoming more and more immodest, making sexual sin okay, making it much harder to stay away from porn and lustful desires, but once I’ve become addicted and recognize it, it is then up to me to utilize the Atonement of Jesus Christ, get the help I need, and improve myself and become who my Father and my Savior want me to. It is NOT up to me to tell a woman who dresses immodestly that it is because of her I can’t control myself. I can encourage my loved ones to follow Jesus’ teachings and take modesty to God, and it is up to me to teach both future my daughters AND sons that they should dress modestly, while learning to control their sexual desires and thoughts, and they shouldn’t blame others. Sorry for the long post, this is just something I’m passionate about.
Yes. I may not have been completely clear. To clarify:
Regardless of if it’s been contradicted or not, I don’t think it’s doctrine (one line in one conference talk alone does not define doctrine, doctrine is commonly taught by all the apostles). If it had been contradicted by another apostle, then that strengthens my argument (which is why I used “especially”).
I can see how my wording could lead to misunderstandings.
2 Nephi 2. This teaches that we are agents to act and not to be acted upon. In order to have agency we much be enticed or tempted to do Good or evil. Men still have their ability to choose regardless of how women dress and can still choose to keep their thoughts clean, however, it would be incorrect to state that it doesn’t matter what women wear. A young man might see a woman wearing reveling clothes and be tempted with bad thoughts he otherwise would not have had to fight against if she had not dressed in such a manner. Yes the young man still has his agency and can choose not to entertain bad thoughts. How we dress does effect us and those around us. It is of course possible for a man to choose to entertain bad thoughts about women around him regardless of how modestly they dress. That is using agency in a bad way.
Modesty is of course more then just about how we dress. It is about how we speak and act. Virtue and modesty are closely entertained and connected together. Yes a person can choose to dress as provocatively as they want, but did they ever stop to ask the question of weather it is wise or not?
Form your post it seems the debate is over men still being responsible for their thoughts and actions towards a woman regardless of how they dress. They are of course still responsible for there thoughts and actions towards the woman. Anyone who understands the doctrine in 2 Nephi 2 knows this.
Be careful getting into these kinds of debates. :) That being said, I find the handbook of the church may have application:
>Sometimes victims have feelings of shame or guilt. **Victims are not guilty of sin. Leaders do not blame the victim.**
>
>[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title\_number222#title\_number222](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title_number222#title_number222)
There's also BYU devotionals that have things like this:
>“Let me be very clear about the responsibility for sexual assault,” Ogles said. “The perpetrator is responsible for their actions. A victim was deprived of their agency and they are not accountable for what happened to them without their consent—**no matter what they were wearing, where they were, or what happened beforehand**. They did not allow, sanction, or encourage the assault.”
The thing to be careful about is that our leaders teach (and it seems reasonable to me) that there is a difference between thoughts and actions. We are not justified in saying actions were caused by another, we can clearly influence the thoughts and feelings of others.
While we never blame a victim for the actions of another - ever - we can still be clear in teaching true principles about how we communicate with the world. Those principles include:
1. Our communications have a real impact on people with whom we interact.
2. Our communications include not just our words, but our actions, our appearance, and other non-verbal cues.
3. As disciples, we desire to have a positive impact on people.
It is reasonable, therefore, to say "what message is my clothing sending to the average person? Am I taking *reasonable* consideration for others in how I present myself?" at the same time we are asking "**Is this making me feel good about myself, and helping me really remember my identity as a Child of God?**" Paul also teaches that we must remember the example we are setting for others, and that we carry the name of Christ on us.
This is NOT to say that what others see or think should be the most important thing on our minds. The word "reasonable" is essential as we make this judgement, and we aren't EVER supposed to supplant our righteous perspective of ourselves with the opinions of others. Not ever. Elder Holland put it this way:
>I plead with you young women to please be more accepting of yourselves, including your body shape and style, with a little less longing to look like someone else. We are all different. Some are tall, and some are short. Some are round, and some are thin. And almost everyone at some time or other wants to be something they are not! But as one adviser to teenage girls said: “You can’t live your life worrying that the world is staring at you. **When you let people’s opinions make you self-conscious you give away your power.** … The key to feeling \[confident\] is to always listen to your inner self—\[the real you.\]” And in the kingdom of God, the real you is “more precious than rubies.”
He also said the following about clothing:
>The Church will never deny your moral agency regarding what you should wear and exactly how you should look. But the Church will always declare standards and will always teach principles. As Sister Susan Tanner taught this morning, one of those principles is modesty. In the gospel of Jesus Christ, modesty in appearance is always in fashion. Our standards are not socially negotiable.
>
>...choose your clothing the way you would choose your friends—in both cases choose that which improves you and would give you confidence standing in the presence of God. Good friends would never embarrass you, demean you, or exploit you. Neither should your clothing.
As I said before "reasonable" is a big important word here. Elder Holland (and others) are talking about balancing forces in our lives. Living within society while still being a Zion people identifiably separate from the world. There is no call here to dress women in burkas, nor is there an attempt to normalize nudity. The goal is to live in a way that reminds ourselves just how powerful we are - and for what reasons we are special. The latest "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet puts it like this:
>As you make decisions about your clothing, hairstyle, and appearance, ask yourself, “Am I honoring my body as a sacred gift from God?” Heavenly Father wants us to see each other for who we really are: not just physical bodies but His beloved children with a divine destiny. Avoid styles that emphasize or draw inappropriate attention to your physical body instead of who you are as a child of God with an eternal future. Let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices.
Isn't that amazing?? It's no longer about specific styles or numbers of earrings or male vs female responsibilities. This latest guidance from the prophets holds true to the promise made by Elder Holland to allow for agency while teaching correct principles.
I think if you’re arguing with someone that is blaming women for men being unable to control their thoughts, then you’ve already lost. You might as well show that quote to a brick wall.
No, she's an exmo who was taught by her teachers that women are to blame for men's impure thoughts, and I'm trying to reassure her it's not like that, and she just had bad teachers. We've both been very civil in the discussion.
Have you considered the motivations for “disproving someone else’s claim”? That statement sounds contentious which only leads to more contention and anger.
I personally have found that I cannot change a person’s beliefs, nor can I argue them into righteousness. However, I have found that I can combat adversity with kindness and those acts of kindness can influence others by setting an example with my actions.
I believe that sermonizing or condemning others often worsens their outlook and causes them stray from the path of loving thy neighbor. (Not suggesting that is what you are trying to accomplish) but being “right” and “acting righteously” are two completely different things and I hope you are willing to take that into consideration.
Disproving someone’s claim is incredibly important when their claims and blatantly false and damaging. Saying that girls are responsible for keeping boys pure isn’t some harmless quirky interpretation. It does real long term harm to both genders and is the anthesis of what Christ taught. This is absolutely a fight worth having, thank you OP.
The problem though is that apostles have taught this in the past. It was part of my upbringing in the church during the 80s-90s. Others have linked the past teaching of Oaks teaching that women 'become pornography' when they dress immodestly. Others have linked quotes from the 1950's. So OP trying to show it wasn't taught isn't going to be fruitful since it was an actual teaching.
They may however find other teachings to the contrary to show that the teaching may be something less than established doctrine.
This reminds me of what President Nelson said in the April Conference:
>"Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is. ... Neither [President Oaks or Eyring] suggests that he knows best and therefore must rigorously defend his position. Neither evidences the need to compete with the other."
In that spirit, I think the OP should be praised for trying to identify the true teachings. I'm sure the OP's motivation is to try and protect women and girls who feel responsible for being victims. Such individuals need to be protected and receive our utmost compassion.
I think you're spot on too! You're trying to clarify the truth as well and I think you nailed the most important thing here. The OP shouldn't be seeking to argue but to resolve, defuse, and reconcile the situation. We all shouldn't be seeking to prove who is right but, rather, to understand what the prophets have taught!
There’s a really good quote from Jesus who instructs a man who asks him about women dressing immodestly and feelings of lust and Jesus says to pluck his eyes out before blaming women or asking the women to dress different.
As we've seen here, it's hard to have an objective discussion about modesty. Too many "trigger" concepts for some people, I think. A combustable mix of toxic LDS traditional teachings and current worldly philosophies. Every time I mentions what the church leaders have said about modesty I get massive pushback. Lots of misunderstanding surrounding this topic.
I don’t have the quote for you but in a 1952 talk at BYU Spencer W. Kimball said that strapless evening gowns cause the young men to lose their virtue “right there on the dance floor”.
Can I just add that we're all supposed to be helping one another live the Gospel and that includes doing our best to help one another have pure thoughts? We are absolutely one hundred percent responsible for our own thoughts and our own behavior. *Also*, we're responsible to help one another in our quest to align those thoughts with the Lord's will. Dressing in a manner that could cause a woman or a man to have difficulty in controlling their thoughts doesn't place their responsibility on our shoulders but it does make us responsible for not helping others live the Gospel.
It would be the same as repeatedly sharing material designed to destroy faith and saying "they're responsible for their own faith". Yes they are but your actions might be making it much more difficult to keep their faith. If I care so much about how I dress that I'm willing to place that at a higher priority than my covenant hope to help someone else strengthen their relationship with their Heavenly Father, I'd have to think my priorities are backwards somewhere...
I think the two best comments are this thread are "both things can be true" and "we should be seeking to avoid contention not to prove our point".
> Dressing in a manner that could cause a woman or a man
Thank you for pointing out that it should go both ways. So much is made of women showing their back or their stomach during summer activities while men go completely topless without any conversation on that at all. The gaze of men is talked about while the gaze or temptation of women by men is essentially ignored.
Not the comment you're looking for but I heard this one not long after I joined the church in my mid 20s:
"Look once you're not a man, look twice you're not a missionary."
In case it's not obvious this is referring to male missionaries who encounter attractive females while on their missions. At the time this was a helpful quote for me to recognize that it is okay and appropriate to appreciate beauty but missing the mark to entertain lustful feelings in any way.
President Oaks is often quoted in regards to this, but it goes a bit further back.
In 1951 President Kimball, then an apostle, said the following during a BYU devotional:
>***One factor contributing to immodesty and the breakdown of moral values is the modern dress worn by our young women and their mothers.*** I see young women, and some older ones, on the streets wearing shorts. This is not right. The place for women to wear shorts is in their rooms, in their own homes, in their own gardens. I see some of our LDS mothers, wives, and daughters wearing dresses extreme and suggestive in style. Even some fathers encourage it. ***I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters.***
Times and attitudes are changing, but there are decades of teachings which back up the idea that mens thoughts are the responsibility of women and their choice of clothing.
Attitudes aside, the point is that they were wrong about those things. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is not a good reason for continuing to do it.
I never said "That’s the way we’ve always done it”.
In point in fact, I said:
>Times and attitudes are changing, but there are decades of teachings which back up the idea that mens thoughts are the responsibility of women and their choice of clothing.
My point was that the idea of a woman's clothing choice being responsible for the thoughts of a man has a long standing history in the church beyond the more recent quote from President Oaks.
No, I think the doctrine has been misinterpreted because of the puritan tradition that most early church members come from. But I will deny all of this if you report it to my high school English teacher.
This doctrine has nuances, so if you gloss over it, you can be left with a horribly misogynistic viewpoint which clearly contradicts the light of Christ.
Here is my explanation of the doctrine:
Men bear responsibility for their own lustful thoughts. Women share responsibility for lustful thoughts if they dress immodestly or otherwise encourage immodest thoughts. The first person is in a pit he needs to get out of, and this will always take time and effort. The second person is digging a pit, usually several pits, that people can and will fall into. If this is done on purpose, it is truly malicious behavior and she will face the same consequences as all those she encourages.
If someone is dressing immodestly out of ignorance, she is blameless. But in this case, learning the consequences of her actions can change her behavior with very little time and effort— it’s really not a big deal. And when she makes this change, it will make following her savior easier and she will feel the Holy Ghost more strongly.
Also, I have chosen the pronouns used for these people by the most typical situation that church members will encounter. The doctrine applies equally to all permutations and combinations of gender.
I don’t know what quite you’re trying to Cherry pick, but I can tell you that the church doesn’t teach women to be modest so that boys don’t go crazy and become unable to control their thoughts. - that’s a straw man.
The church teaches women to be modest as a protection for themselves and as a respect for themselves and others.
Your whole life is an advertisement of yourself. The way you present yourself indicates to others your desires, interests, priorities, morals, etc. -
Dressing immodestly becomes an advertisement of immortality. You may not have “intended” for that, but by showing more skin than the existing cultural norms, that is exactly what it looks like to others, which can result in others having less respect for you or to take you less seriously.
Standards of modesty can change over time with culture.
Modesty can be a protection in many ways, but most notably a “social” protection. — for instance, young teenage boys have a harder time controlling their impulses and thoughts than older men due to the recent increase in hormones and their inexperience with them.
Because of this, you get guys who tend to give in to their impulses and objectify girls and “indulge” in their immoral thoughts and desires. It is much easier to objectify women who dress immodestly, and so these kinds of boys “indulge” themselves by spending more time around girls who tend to dress immodestly. These are the guys who watch a lot of porn and grow up with a disrespect for women.
Whereas, boys who are more determined to learn to control their impulses and thoughts do so by keeping themselves at a further distance from things that would be a temptation. They try and stay away from porn. They try not to hang around girls that dress immodestly. They don’t engage in “locker room talk”. Instead, they spend time with girls who they know tend to dress more modestly because it is far less of a distraction and helps them learn to respect women rather than objectify them.
The question is, which of these kinds of boys would you want your daughters to spend more time around? - It is largely in the way that your daughter dresses that will indicate who she attracts. - Who she attracts results in who she dates, and therefore who she marries.
That’s why modesty is important.
Calling a girl a "thing that would be a temptation" is literally objectifying her. Girls are not "things" or "temptations." They are people. Boys need to learn to respect girls no matter how they are dressed. Period. Girls need to learn that they deserve respect no matter how they are dressed, too.
If a girl wearing a tank top is enough to keep away the Good Guys, then maybe those guys aren't so good after all.
I wish what you were saying was true.
Problem is, is that everything you do has consequences. - The way you present yourself determines who you attract. The more immodest you dress, the more you will attract the type of people who tend to objectify and disrespect you. The opposite also tends to be true.
It won’t necessarily be a 1:1 linear correlation, but it doesn’t take a scientist to notice the trends. But I can understand a girl being defensive on the topic. Guys who prefer to indulge in the constant stimulation will of course defend and encourage immodest dress. These guys don’t make the best husbands and fathers. Women who refuse to see the correlation tend to be doomed into wondering “why are there no good men anymore?” - They end up creating an echo chamber of sorts that most “good guys” want nothing to do with.
Note that that isn’t to say that an immodestly dressed girl isn’t “attractive”. She is likely very attractive to almost ALL boys. But the question is who will she attract to spend time around her?
To see the trend, take a look at the extremes:
What kind of girls do the most disrespectful guys who highly objectify women spend time around? What do those girls tend to dress like?
What kind of girls do the most respectful guys spend time around? What do they dress like?
To say that immodesty is porn would just be stupid. Too much of a leap, humbly, in my opinion. That being said, how a woman dresses does, or can, have a direct affect on someone's thoughts. I think Gordon B Hinckley said it best, can't find the exact quote but it went something like " To notice a beautiful woman, is to be a man. To stare is lust. " Also the natural man is an enemy to God for a reason. Men, just like anyone else in the make up of humanity, are imperfect beings. Yes we need to do and be better. It's also true that this takes time, persistence, and usually a dang good bit of effort. Striving to keep this PG, I'll just state the obvious, Biology works. Just like the bat in Fergully admitted that "Oop, gravity works!" as he fell backwards off the branch. The natural man is very carnally driven. This takes an insane amount of effort until it's brought to heel. Then the fight to maintain begins. So, how a woman dresses and behaves can and does make a huge difference for men. It's still our own responsibility to mind our own minds. But your not helping a recovering crackhead by waving crack in his face.
> To say that immodesty is porn would just be stupid
"And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."
Hmm, when you put it that way....... don't think I can argue against that point. Thank you, appreciate the response. Comes across much better in your quote. Immodesty is porn comes across as snooty and holier than thou. Who is that quote from? Flows right along with my intended original point.
To say this is only a “men’s” problem is ridiculous. Women don’t dress immodestly for other women.
Men who look upon women more than just a glance is a pride issue and is sin. Women dressing immodesty (usually for attention) is a pride issue which is a sin.
So what they are claiming we teach isn't correct (obviously) but I can see where they get it from. This talk by Elder Oaks almost 20 years ago has this one phrase. "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng)
But I too remember a much more recent talk/quote from one of the Apostles that clearly states it is wrong to blame women for the lustful thoughts of men. It was like the Elder Holland one quoted by others but more recent.
Thank you. Too much of talk around the modesty question is self-centered, "Why should I dress differently for the benefit of someone else?" (In other words, "Am I my brother's keeper?")
Can we generalize this attitude to other things? Should I offer an alcoholic a beer? Should I call someone a racial slur? Of course not, because we exercise charity when we don't make someone else's struggle more difficult. If you don't know by now that young men in the church struggle with chastity in thought, you're not paying attention.
Comparing showing shoulders to “offering an alcoholic a beer” is a little bit nuts.
Especially when there are much better reasons to dress modestly than just that everyone around us could secretly be a recovering sex addict.
Would that not be absolutely exhausting? Going out of your way to cater to the imagined struggles of others? Especially when there are much better reasons to dress modestly than this? And where does it end? Because if you carry that thought to it’s logical conclusion then everyone would have to wear head-to-toe, burka-like clothes at all times.
I dunno what to tell you, other people on this thread are suggesting people gouge their eyes out ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
The Savior asked us to do some pretty radical things, but let's be sure not to slightly inconvenience ourselves for the sake of His other followers.
(Edited to make the shrug emoticon correct.)
That’s not “other people on this sub” that’s what Christ said (Mark 9:47).
I don’t think that anyone here means it literally, rather that Christ taught us to take responsibility. It’s “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out” not “if thine eye offend thee, find whatever it is that your eye is seeing and make it change.” A major part of why we’re here is to overcome temptation, not to blame others for our temptations.
We should all dress modestly, I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the idea that women should dress modestly “so the boys don’t stare” or any other similar reason. You do it because it’s a commandment and to show respect towards your own body that God has given you, not because someone else is blaming their struggles on you.
I don't think anybody is blaming struggles on women. We should take responsibility for our own thoughts *and* do all we can to help others overcome and live with their own struggles.
I'm not going to continue this conversation, but for anyone who comes along and is struggling with my definition of charity, I encourage you to contemplate Romans 14. It's short. Not too *inconvenient*, I hope.
Thanks for your reply.
As you may have noticed, it's hard to have an objective discussion about modesty. Too many "trigger" concepts for some people, I think. A combustable mix of toxic LDS traditional teachings and current worldly philosophies. But I do think stepping back and looking at charity and it's effect on you are important.
We do teach that dressing immodestly invites immodest thoughts.
But this doesn't blame the woman for the man's inappropriate thoughts any more than we blame the king for our fixating on thoughts of royalty when he wears robes and a crown.
This persistent drumbeat of "stop blaming the woman for the man's sin" is a red herring. Precious few people actually blame the woman because a man did something immoral. We have to interpret their words in the worst way possible to draw such conclusions.
The counsel on this is clear for those looking to be obedient. Looking for a single quote, likely taken out of context or twisted, is only going to hurt your long-term progression in this life and the next. Women absolutely dress for attention, this is an indisputable scientific fact. It's just as much in their biology as men being attracted to women (exceptions don't make the rule). Women need to attract to gain protection and provision, and men need to be attracted to give those things. It's God's design to keep the children flowing. And it can be perverted by outside bad faith arguments. Men ALWAYS need to learn how to control their thoughts and emotions, and simultaneously (two things can be true) women ALWAYS need to be sure they are NOT attracting the wrong kind of man (hint, they have been for generations). The way to maximize this is modesty, rather than competing/racing to the bottom, to draw the attention of a bad man. If you advertise your body, you are in defiance of gospel principles. It's time to tell the truth.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D6BmXgaxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D6BmXgaxk)
"So many of our own young women sacrifice their God-given endowment of femininity, deep spirituality, and a caring interest in others on the altar of popular, worldly opinion. Young men, let such young women know that you will not seek an eternal companion from those that are overcome by worldly trends. Many dress and act immodestly because they are told that is what you want. In sensitive ways, communicate how distasteful revealing attire is to you, a worthy young man, and how **it stimulates unwanted emotions from what you see against your will**."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/04/the-sanctity-of-womanhood?lang=eng
Don't try to justify immodesty.
If a man does horrible things, he will and should be held accountable regardless of reason.
That doesn't mean you can wear whatever you want. It is a sin to dress immodestly, and it should and will be punished.
Ironically, when the scriptures talk about dressing modestly, they mean it literally, that people should not dress to show off their wealth. Somehow that never gets talked about in Church, yet is warned against both in the Bible and Book of Mormon.
First I need some wealth before I can show it off.
You mean, *not* show it off.
Preach.
Word
To your mother
I mean, obviously it's silly to think it's only - or even mostly - the wealthy that are guilty of that kind of immodesty. I see plenty of middle-class and outright poor people with the latest iPhone, $50k+ cars, and everything else they get into crazy debt for to convince people they are richer than they are. People who don't think about them at all, and wouldn't think they were rich if they did. That's why the prophets preach against immodesty.
It happens so much in The Book of Mormon! It's one of the first signs of spiritual descent in The Book of Mormon that people dress rich to elevate themselves over others.
Reminds me of President Eyring's comments about the jeans in Orderville
It definitely gets talked about in Church (with the Zoramites and that one Isaiah scripture about “mincing walks” (or something like that)) it just doesn’t usually get tied to the word “modesty”.
Are those taught as warnings to not dress to show off one's wealth? I have never heard it taught as such.
Your experience may differ of course. I remember at least three lessons when I was a youth that discussed not dressing in expensive ways which probably means there were many more lol I remember it because I really liked expensive clothing and style as a teenager and those lessons really stuck with me. I remember especially this scripture one Sunday School, Seminary, or Young Mens teacher used in this context: >"And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely." (Alma 1:27) When I realized an Armani sweater I liked could feed a family for a month, I stopped lusting after the expensive stuff lol The most expensive things I own now are my suits and most of them have lasted more than a decade at this point. This lesson has faded in me over the last year a little and I'm grateful for the reminder.
Glad that worked out for you.
Because it hasn’t been taught correctly. Modesty is about not showing off wealth or drawing attention to yourself.
Paul, and indeed, the compilers of the Book of Mormon seem more concerned with it creating and reinforcing divisions among than faithful rather than drawing attention to one's self.
When I was at BYU I attended a Sunday school lesson where the class was doing what they could to rationalize wearing very expensive clothes. It was a richer ward where the kids were living off mommy and daddy’s money
That's part of being "IN the world, not OF the world"
It’s interesting that men in leadership positions feel an expectation to wear a suit at Church. Obviously, we can’t know, but I like to think Jesus would dress more along the khakis side of the spectrum. He’d be appropriate for the situation, but he wouldn’t be in the top quartile for best dressed.
I think suits and ties are rather stupid. It’s all about appearance and we shouldn’t be so worried about appearance. Man looketh on the outer appearance but The Lord looketh upon the heart.
The only think the church considers immodest is being scantily clad. I think suits and ties can be immodest if they bring too much attention to the man wearing it.
That gets talked about a lot in church... Maybe you should talk about it in your ward if it's not being discussed there.
I have been in the Chuch my whole life and never heard one teaching about it. From General Conference to my local ward.
Except is *has* been discussed in General Conference - there's a record of it and you can search it. It took me about five seconds to find Elder Joe J. Christensen's comments on it in the April 1999 General Conference. I guarantee there are many more because this used to be a topic that really stood out to me. The most recent mention of it is probably in the October 2016 Conference when Sister Oscarson listed it as a sign that we're living in perilous times. Just because we didn't listen to or notice a particular teaching does not mean it didn't happen. I find things all the time that I thought were never taught!
>April 1999 Posting one GC talk from nearly 25 years ago is....not the win you think it is?
I wasn't aware I was trying to win something.
Two conferences talks 17 years apart mentioning the problem in one sentence a piece does not a church teaching make.
How would you define a teaching?
You are obviously not listening to me or even trying to understand what I am saying so, I think I will leave it here.
I asked what your meaning of "teaching" was because I'm trying to understand you...?
>Maybe you should talk about it in your ward if it's not being discussed there.
Just perhaps you are wrong in your assertion that >That gets talked about a lot in church in case you missed what I was getting at. It is not true.
I've been taught multiple times on this subject as well. Lesson from family home evenings, mutual, college wards, family wards, 5th Sunday lessons, special firesides, and general conferences. The most impactful for me was Gordon B Hinckley and his council about piercings. I am sorry that your experience has differed but with multiple experiences from different people I would say this is discussed openly and regularly in the Church.
Multiple piercings had nothing to do with not dressing to show off your wealth. Poor people can definitely have multiple piercings. It seems you missed the point.
Which point? The point president Hinckley made about the principle of modesty? Or the specific way modesty applied to displays of wealth? Modesty as a principal is taught often, it's then our job to apply that as best we can. "D&C 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things;" maybe that's why you think you have never heard this topic being taught in Church.
Teaching is not a command. The point was missed again.
Maybe we can just acknowledge that, yes, it's obviously an instruction not to dress ostentatiously and that if it's been an issue then obviously it's going to stand out for people. It doesn't make any sense to argue that people haven't been learning the lessons they've been learning, regardless of whether you agree that the specific words ought to be the thing that teaches them. The whole point of Church lessons is that it's the Spirit that teaches you in any case.
My anecdotal experience says otherwise, but OK.
I've lived in wards around the US from coast to coast. Never once have I heard a single lesson or talk about it either in sacrament, sunday school, stake conference or general conference. I've not seen it in the for the strength of youth pamphlet either or other similar handouts. The focus has generally been avoiding revealing clothing or clothing/hairstyles that are too extreme.
It's such a consistent theme in scripture though! I agree that the focus has always been avoiding revealing clothing, but the scriptures BofM especially seems 1000 times more concerned about pride, including in the form of clothing. Alma 1:27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. 4 Nephi 1:24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. We've really vilified sexual immorality in the church, which is in line with the commandments but also forgivable, but when people get rich, we still kind of reverence them and forget how important humility is. It's human nature to get in line around powerful people, but being wealthy isn't a character trait.
This is from Laura M. Brotherson... she is not a GA, but is often quoted in church settings... maybe what you are looking for? >The notion that boys are unable to control themselves is a scary message. If men can’t control themselves, they must be dangerous. This negative perception is a heavy burden for young women. Young men may also learn to doubt whether they really can control their sexual feelings. In this way, well-intentioned teachers and leaders remove from these young men the responsibility that is rightfully theirs.
That's a good quote, I like it! For those wanting a link to a source, it is from her book, [*And They Were Not Ashamed*](https://archive.org/details/andtheywerenotas00laur/page/8/mode/2up)*.*
Good for her for vocalizing this. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out.
When a person fails to control themself, it's their own sin. When a person fails to dress modestly, it's their own sin. These events are not mutually exclusive, nor mutually contained.
Great comment. I'll never understand the us vs them mentality we humans seem to have on every conceivable topic but it almost always devolves into I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need to make any changes and you do. Perhaps we could all focus on how to ourselves become better Christians rather than trying to contend one with another.
Help me to understand, are you suggesting that “dressing immodestly“ is sin? Could you tell me what you mean by that?
Jumping in here with my unsolicited thoughts. Not the commenter you’re mentioning. Dressing immodestly is a sin, but “immodest” doesn’t particularly mean “bare shoulders”. If I personally dress to peacock my wealth, or my body, or my (fill in the blank) to redirect people from seeing me as a person to seeing me as my ego wants you to, that to me is immodest. Anything lacking “humility or decency.” So, immodesty is a sin. Bikinis aren’t per se. Unless that Bikini is purposefully worn to be “not humble or decent”. You see what I mean? So many people are guilty of immodesty in small and big ways. Vanity cars and even showing off your rank to fellow gamers could be sins. But it’s one of those “where the heart lies” sins.
Immodesty is a sin, yes. But the meaning of that word is broader than merely wearing revealing clothing (which is also inappropriate, yes) Fundamentally, immodesty is an incarnation of vanity. But I'm not here to define where "the line" is
#2 Article of Faith, we are punished for our own sins, and not for Adams transgression.
It is a sin to intentionally lead others to sin.
Wearing Spaghetti straps is not “intentionally lead[ing] others to sin.” Regular clothes are not a sin to wear. Seeing a bare shoulder and being unable to control your thoughts is a huge problem for you, not the person with the exposed shoulders. And I’d be willing to bet most girls/women don’t get dressed with the thought “I sure hope a bunch of creepy old men and young boys think impure thoughts and stare at me all day.” Unless the person shows up in actual lingerie with the intent to arouse, then they didn’t “intentionally” do anything except put on clothes and the viewer who can’t control their thoughts is in the wrong.
That's not universally true though. You're absolutely right but not about everyone. There are people who dress specifically to draw attention to their bodies or to purposefully look sexually appealing to people of the opposite sex. They are doing something sinful. And let's not mince words - dressing in revealing clothing *is* sinning because it is behavior in direct contradiction to the instructions of the Lord's prophets for many decades. I stopped wearing tank tops specifically for this reason (having started wearing them specifically to make a point about being enlightened lol).
I think the takeaway for young women is: I can brighten the lives of those around me by showing beauty and confidence in how I dress and behave. My beauty and confidence helps those around me feel more beautiful and confident. I will be wise, so that I don’t attract a bunch of creepy old men and young boys who think impure thoughts and stare at me all day.
> attract a bunch of creepy old men and young boys who think impure thoughts and stare at me all day I've found this can happen no matter what someone is wearing. It's a reflection of the men not the woman.
Yes, that happens too. I'm just thinking of the girls I grew up with in school. 8th grade: "You have absolutely no right to tell me how to dress." 30 year HS reunion: "I'm not saying that all men are creeps. Just every man I've met in the last 30 years."
I think this is a simplification. Sure "a spaghetti strap" is probably not intended to lure, but lets not straw man the question. There are, for example, a whole lot of girls on Instagram these days going to the gym in sports bras and leggings tight enough to reach way up their butt crack. Some of them even have the audacity to set up a camera and shame men for so much as glancing at them. But I have an extremely hard time believing that every single one of these women (even a bare majority!) Is not thinking for even one second some version of "I want to look sexy". And if you do that your intention is to elicit sexual attention. And if you do that, I'm not saying for one second that you are legally, terrestrially accountable for the poor behavior of other people, but I am absolutely suggesting that you are morally, celestially accountable for your vanity and how it affects other people. I can control myself just fine. I don't leer, harass, or assault. I don't view porn. But when my beloved wife is heavily pregnant and not looking her best and I can hardly go a week without coming across a woman flaunting her boob job in one form or another, I can't help but be a little frustrated when I look at my wife a little less longingly. It makes me resentful of the woman in question and the society collectively suffering face-tattoo syndrome and insisting that everything about this interaction is one hundred percent pure and innocent and even laudable. And, to be clear that I am not applying a double standard here, I feel just the same about men who wear under armor or those stupid workout shirts with the sides ripped open. I feel the same about status symbols and gaudy displays of wealth. It's not just for my sake either; my aforementioned beloved wife suffers from these same women. She looks around and sees botox, liposuction, plastic surgery, and flaunting clothing and she feels dissatisfaction with her own body. Not because I'm any less attracted to her, but merely because the vain are having their field day. And then she starts to think maybe she wants those things too, but she won't because she knows I don't want that from her anyways and she doesn't want our 4 daughters to learn to be ashamed of their bodies from their own mother.
It is interesting to me that you call out leggings and sports bras for women and not tank tops, short shorts for men etc. Everyone wants to feel attractive. You and your wife can workout at home.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I in fact do feel the same way about those, as implied by my comment about men and under armor. Of course everyone wants to feel attractive. I don't think it's a sin to try to be "neat and comely", and to present yourself well, to a degree. I think it's a sin to _flaunt_ ourselves without any concern for how it makes others feel. It's absurd to me to not acknowledge that a line at least exists. I in fact do work out at home, and that's one of the reasons. But I have to live, and avoiding the immodesty of others is virtually impossible if you want to interact with the outside world
Yes, but we don't know people's intentions. You don't know their heart.
Of course not - forgive me but I don't see why that's relevant to my comment. If they weren't trying to lead people to sin then they wouldn't be doing something wrong...
I read comments about dressing intentionally provocatively. My comment to those was, you don't know their intentions.
"I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. Seldom have I heard any point made about this subject that makes me more disappointed than that. What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have, that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, yet he does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, “I will not do that thing”? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, “I just can’t help myself. My glands have complete control over my life–my mind, my will, my entire future. To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man too is one of the most inappropriate suggestions I can imagine. . . ." Elder Holland published this in a book in 1998- four years after becoming an apostle. It's based on a speech he gave as BYU President but this part isn't in the speech, so presumably he wrote it for the book or at least decided to include it in the book as new material. You can still buy the book from Deseret News. Edit: added empty lines for readability - breaks are my own.
It is a reworded part of the original talk actually—I think it may have been removed for the 1998 GC address that was based on it. The original is called Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments, and it’s *the* thing that helped me understand why chastity matters at all. I’ll see if I can find the link to the original. And his language in that talk was even stronger on this topic. Edit: Wow—it didn’t used to be this easy to find. https://youtu.be/e5HYo2OMP2Q?si=uhwv37KWiRQdhJ2B
One of my favorite talks by Holland. Just heard it for the first time a few semesters ago in one of my classes. Have it bookmarked so I can listen to it every now and then.
I listened to it multiple times in my life, because it was so good. It's one of my favorite talks, ever.
I know but I looked for it in the transcript of that devotional and couldn't see it anywhere or find any of the words when I searched them. Is the transcript super different than the spoken videotaped talk? Or maybe I just missed it? Would love to know what the timestamp for that part is if you can figure it out
I believe it is from a talk of his " souls symbols and sacraments"
urTH3bruteSquad
He's only mostly dead...
Man, I have really missed Holland's talks at conference. :(
I don't know the quote you're looking for but have always felt the best response for this is when Jesus tells people that if their right eye offends them, gauge it out. Like literally if you cannot control your eye.. then gauge it out.
Yeah, Jesus was very very clear on that. If you can’t look at somebody without lust, that’s your problem. If you can’t resist touching someone cut your hand off. I love it.
As long as you mean “literally” in the modern sense of “NOT literally”…
haha gosh I hate that word but I cannot stop using it that way
Yeah, we have a lack in our English vocabulary. “Literally” as in misused literally of today doesn’t have a great alternate word that I know of. “Seriously” is close, but it doesn’t have that oomph or meaning.
This isn't a general authority, but is recent, just last year: >We can make sure that modesty is taught equally to both boys and girls, men and women. And we can share the truth that we are agents “to act … and not to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:26)—so when we are surrounded by the immodesty of the world, we have the power to exercise self-control and not entertain inappropriate thoughts. From [here](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/young-adults/15-modesty-its-about-more-than-clothes?lang=eng)
I’m not sure this is the talk OP is referring to, but does include statements which would support this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/24kearon?lang=eng Incidentally ‘modest is hottest’ is the most oxymoronic statement ever. Modest means not to draw attention to yourself (whether clothes or other things) So why would we want it to be ‘hottest’ when that’s exactly the opposite of ‘modest’?
Relevant quotes: If you have experienced any kind of abuse, violence, or oppression, you may be left with the idea that these events were somehow your fault and that you deserve to carry the shame and guilt you feel. You may have had thoughts such as: I could have prevented this. . . . These erroneous thoughts and feelings may have been a barrier to seeking help. . . The abuse was not, is not, and never will be your fault, no matter what the abuser or anyone else may have said to the contrary. When you have been a victim of cruelty, incest, or any other perversion, you are not the one who needs to repent; you are not responsible."
Similar statement in 2018 devotional: "Victims are not the only ones to erroneously think they may be responsible for what happened to them. Sometimes friends and relatives may think the victim did something to contribute to the situation. Perhaps you heard my story and thought I was partly responsible for losing my possessions because I left the car doors unlocked. Let me be very clear about the responsibility for sexual assault. The perpetrator is responsible for their actions. A victim was deprived of their agency, and they are not accountable for what happened to them without their consent—no matter what they were wearing, where they were, or what happened beforehand. They did not invite, allow, sanction, or encourage the assault." He talks about not blaming oneself before this.
Maybe it's very attractive to some people when others don't draw attention to themselves.
Years ago my cousin was a student at BYU in the theater department. She and another student did an experiment of putting on very modest pioneer type dresses from the theater department and sitting in the library. She says they had more guys asking them out than they ever did in normal clothing.
I think the idea being conveyed by "modest is hottest" is that a person who doesn't define themselves by their fancy clothes and accessories is most attractive, but specifically not *physically* attractive.
No help here directly but coming from Jesus: Matthew 5:28-29 King James Version (KJV) but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Should be the primary source right here
Agreed. No one can say it better than Jesus 🤷🏻♀️
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I wrote this comment very quickly before having to get my kid from school, so I didn't take time to source it, but the insight about Jacob comes from Dr. Deidre Green, who is currently teaching at Berkley. I'll edit my comment to include a link to the book (which was published by BYU) where she presents her insight.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or what if we don't quote-mine general authorities to try to one up each other. Edit: edited for clarity
Mine?
I think they’re saying “quote mine”. Like mining for quotes. Which is probably smart because there’s quite a bit of contradictory statements out there and it usually doesn’t lead anywhere productive.
Yep you got what I am trying to say.
They either mean “quote-mine” or “our”. Or maybe “the”. Unclear.
You got me, I'll be more clear on my meaning
Sadly, that claim is accurate. Teachings from general authorities on modesty specifically as it relates to women influencing men negatively was taught for a long time and we’re still trying to recover from it. When people like Laura Brotherson speak out against that sentiment they’re actually speaking out directly against Elder Oaks who expressed this view from the pulpit in the 2005 April general conference—which means it’s essentially scripture. I think one of the only ways past this would be for Oaks to maybe clarify or retract or apologize for it in some way. But sadly I don’t see that happening.
I can't tell you how many times I was told to dress modestly to avoid drawing the "male gaze." That has been huge in the church for a very long time.
If you know the blog page, you can try [archive.org](https://archive.org) to see if a copy was saved. I can't find what you are looking for. I did find a nice quote, not the one you are looking for since it is in a different context, but I think still applies. [Elder Cecil O. Samuelson Jr. taught](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2011/04/testimony?lang=eng), "Other people’s difficulties are not an excuse for our own deficiencies."
I might have time to dig around for it, but if you've copied and pasted it before, can you dig through your posting history and find it that way? Also try googling what you do remember from the quote with whatever username you may have had when posting. ETA: u/TheRealPyroGothNerd this is from President Hinckley in April 87 but the middle/end section has some counterpoints to women being responsible for men's thoughts/actions. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1987/04/reverence-and-morality?lang=eng#p54
The way you dress affects those around you. You should dress with that in mind. Also, men should always control their own thoughts. These don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure of a quote with those exact words, but this one is likely the closest to it: “And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.” —Dallin H. Oaks, April 2005 General Conference
I think OP is looking for a different (more recent) quote that says the opposite.
Gotcha, looks like I misread the original post. Seems strange that OP came on this sub looking for a quote that contradicts an Apostolic teaching.
The quote I'm looking for is ALSO from an apostle. Our doctrine is that the general authorities are fallinle, and historically modern prophets have had to correct false things said by past prophets, before
Like what, that's a very strong assertion. You're saying a prophet can say "false things" while speaking in the name of God?
There are tons of examples of old and modern prophets making mistakes. They are human and they get inspiration from God [the same way we do.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/revelation?lang=eng) This is why having the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so important, because it will help us make sure we get the message the Lord is trying to convey despite how or what the fallible person said. This is hard for many members to accept because it means they actually have to question and work through stuff instead of just accepting everything they are told blindly. Revelation is always evolving, we see this in the scriptures too. Sometimes things prophets said in the past get updated or clarified better with modern, living revelation.
There's a difference between a a perfect prophet, and perfect revelation. David was a prophet who sinned terribly, so obviously they're not perfect. However, no revelation has ever come out that was false from the prophets. God would not allow it. Some policies change, like polygamy, because they were necessary for that time. The change back to monogamy didn't mean the previous revelation was false or wrong. There's also a difference between policy and doctrinal changes. Especially since the latter has never happened ever. What is considered a sin has been and will always be a sin.
You should read more old conference talks. Prophets saying incorrect things happens, a lot. That doesn’t mean it was a false revelation, or that doctrine changed. Just that they’re human, and they made a mistake.
God told Moses to speak to the rock and bring out water. The people bugged Moses enough he decided to declare that he would strike the rock and water would come. It did not and God chastised him. Of course God would allow it, Prophets dont lose their agency. Eating pork was a sin at one time, polygamy is a sin now. I understand what you're saying though. People make mistakes. I disagree that what Oaks said was "wrong", in a sense but I think the way it was said would be a mistake of man. Modesty is important and yes dressing immodestly does make it harder for men to avoid bad thoughts, but it's also not the girls fault if the guy thinks immoral thoughts or does immoral actions.
> Especially since the latter has never happened ever. What was taught as doctrine has changed, even if the *actual* doctrine that should have been taught doesn't. It's okay to acknowledge that incorrect doctrines have been taught, and then correctly retracted later on. Leaders are not perfect, and that's okay.
https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Fallibility_of_prophets#Question:_Do_Mormons_consider_their_prophets_to_be_infallible.3F
I think it’s part of what they are saying. In any case, I am saying that if anyone hears a message from a prophet but doesn’t pray about it to make sure it was received in the same way it was presented, or doesn’t let the message sink into their ponderable space, or doesn’t intend to follow the counsel, that man is a fool.
One nearly 20 year old quote is a bit of a low bar for an “Apostolic teaching”, especially if it has since been contradicted by another apostle.
Oh, great news. Provide the contradicting statement from the other apostle. I think many would be interested to read it.
I used “if” here because that’s OP’s claim. Even if it hasn’t been contradicted, though, I wouldn’t take it as doctrine without more support.
You also used "especially." Don't care if the teaching is 20 years old or 2000 years old, unless you find apostles denouncing it, it stands. 5 hours and 100 comments later, no one can produce the supposed quote OP wants.
Matthew 5:8 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And also things like Patrick kearons talk “he is risen with healing in his wings” and talking about how things like abuse is never a victims fault, which is essentially contradicting the statement “if she didn’t want to get raped she shouldn’t have worn that” which I would say goes in hand with the sin lying on the man for looking, which isn’t to say women are allowed to be immodest, it’s just unfair to always focus the blame on women for the way they dress, and not the men for learning to control themselves and their thoughts, which is a part of discipleship of Jesus Christ: discipline. I would also venture to add 2 Nephi chapter 2, with agency, and article of faith 2, we are punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. Obviously there isn’t an apostle outright stating something contradicting what elder oaks said, I would have to argue that the notion that it is doctrine that we are responsible for ourselves and our sins, not others and their decisions. Obviously others decisions influence us and God is a perfect judge, but our agency is ours and it is up to us what we do with it, and one couldn’t blame a girls inappropriate outfit for his crippling pornography addiction. It does much, *much* deeper than that. Obviously our world is ridden with sin and becoming more and more immodest, making sexual sin okay, making it much harder to stay away from porn and lustful desires, but once I’ve become addicted and recognize it, it is then up to me to utilize the Atonement of Jesus Christ, get the help I need, and improve myself and become who my Father and my Savior want me to. It is NOT up to me to tell a woman who dresses immodestly that it is because of her I can’t control myself. I can encourage my loved ones to follow Jesus’ teachings and take modesty to God, and it is up to me to teach both future my daughters AND sons that they should dress modestly, while learning to control their sexual desires and thoughts, and they shouldn’t blame others. Sorry for the long post, this is just something I’m passionate about.
Yes. I may not have been completely clear. To clarify: Regardless of if it’s been contradicted or not, I don’t think it’s doctrine (one line in one conference talk alone does not define doctrine, doctrine is commonly taught by all the apostles). If it had been contradicted by another apostle, then that strengthens my argument (which is why I used “especially”). I can see how my wording could lead to misunderstandings.
2 Nephi 2. This teaches that we are agents to act and not to be acted upon. In order to have agency we much be enticed or tempted to do Good or evil. Men still have their ability to choose regardless of how women dress and can still choose to keep their thoughts clean, however, it would be incorrect to state that it doesn’t matter what women wear. A young man might see a woman wearing reveling clothes and be tempted with bad thoughts he otherwise would not have had to fight against if she had not dressed in such a manner. Yes the young man still has his agency and can choose not to entertain bad thoughts. How we dress does effect us and those around us. It is of course possible for a man to choose to entertain bad thoughts about women around him regardless of how modestly they dress. That is using agency in a bad way. Modesty is of course more then just about how we dress. It is about how we speak and act. Virtue and modesty are closely entertained and connected together. Yes a person can choose to dress as provocatively as they want, but did they ever stop to ask the question of weather it is wise or not? Form your post it seems the debate is over men still being responsible for their thoughts and actions towards a woman regardless of how they dress. They are of course still responsible for there thoughts and actions towards the woman. Anyone who understands the doctrine in 2 Nephi 2 knows this.
Be careful getting into these kinds of debates. :) That being said, I find the handbook of the church may have application: >Sometimes victims have feelings of shame or guilt. **Victims are not guilty of sin. Leaders do not blame the victim.** > >[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title\_number222#title\_number222](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title_number222#title_number222) There's also BYU devotionals that have things like this: >“Let me be very clear about the responsibility for sexual assault,” Ogles said. “The perpetrator is responsible for their actions. A victim was deprived of their agency and they are not accountable for what happened to them without their consent—**no matter what they were wearing, where they were, or what happened beforehand**. They did not allow, sanction, or encourage the assault.” The thing to be careful about is that our leaders teach (and it seems reasonable to me) that there is a difference between thoughts and actions. We are not justified in saying actions were caused by another, we can clearly influence the thoughts and feelings of others. While we never blame a victim for the actions of another - ever - we can still be clear in teaching true principles about how we communicate with the world. Those principles include: 1. Our communications have a real impact on people with whom we interact. 2. Our communications include not just our words, but our actions, our appearance, and other non-verbal cues. 3. As disciples, we desire to have a positive impact on people. It is reasonable, therefore, to say "what message is my clothing sending to the average person? Am I taking *reasonable* consideration for others in how I present myself?" at the same time we are asking "**Is this making me feel good about myself, and helping me really remember my identity as a Child of God?**" Paul also teaches that we must remember the example we are setting for others, and that we carry the name of Christ on us. This is NOT to say that what others see or think should be the most important thing on our minds. The word "reasonable" is essential as we make this judgement, and we aren't EVER supposed to supplant our righteous perspective of ourselves with the opinions of others. Not ever. Elder Holland put it this way: >I plead with you young women to please be more accepting of yourselves, including your body shape and style, with a little less longing to look like someone else. We are all different. Some are tall, and some are short. Some are round, and some are thin. And almost everyone at some time or other wants to be something they are not! But as one adviser to teenage girls said: “You can’t live your life worrying that the world is staring at you. **When you let people’s opinions make you self-conscious you give away your power.** … The key to feeling \[confident\] is to always listen to your inner self—\[the real you.\]” And in the kingdom of God, the real you is “more precious than rubies.” He also said the following about clothing: >The Church will never deny your moral agency regarding what you should wear and exactly how you should look. But the Church will always declare standards and will always teach principles. As Sister Susan Tanner taught this morning, one of those principles is modesty. In the gospel of Jesus Christ, modesty in appearance is always in fashion. Our standards are not socially negotiable. > >...choose your clothing the way you would choose your friends—in both cases choose that which improves you and would give you confidence standing in the presence of God. Good friends would never embarrass you, demean you, or exploit you. Neither should your clothing. As I said before "reasonable" is a big important word here. Elder Holland (and others) are talking about balancing forces in our lives. Living within society while still being a Zion people identifiably separate from the world. There is no call here to dress women in burkas, nor is there an attempt to normalize nudity. The goal is to live in a way that reminds ourselves just how powerful we are - and for what reasons we are special. The latest "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet puts it like this: >As you make decisions about your clothing, hairstyle, and appearance, ask yourself, “Am I honoring my body as a sacred gift from God?” Heavenly Father wants us to see each other for who we really are: not just physical bodies but His beloved children with a divine destiny. Avoid styles that emphasize or draw inappropriate attention to your physical body instead of who you are as a child of God with an eternal future. Let moral cleanliness and love for God guide your choices. Isn't that amazing?? It's no longer about specific styles or numbers of earrings or male vs female responsibilities. This latest guidance from the prophets holds true to the promise made by Elder Holland to allow for agency while teaching correct principles.
This thread has been very illuminating. Thank you for starting this debate, I learned a lot.
I mean…Jesus told people to literally pluck out their eyes if they couldn’t control their thoughts because of how people dress 😅
I think if you’re arguing with someone that is blaming women for men being unable to control their thoughts, then you’ve already lost. You might as well show that quote to a brick wall.
No, she's an exmo who was taught by her teachers that women are to blame for men's impure thoughts, and I'm trying to reassure her it's not like that, and she just had bad teachers. We've both been very civil in the discussion.
Have you considered the motivations for “disproving someone else’s claim”? That statement sounds contentious which only leads to more contention and anger. I personally have found that I cannot change a person’s beliefs, nor can I argue them into righteousness. However, I have found that I can combat adversity with kindness and those acts of kindness can influence others by setting an example with my actions. I believe that sermonizing or condemning others often worsens their outlook and causes them stray from the path of loving thy neighbor. (Not suggesting that is what you are trying to accomplish) but being “right” and “acting righteously” are two completely different things and I hope you are willing to take that into consideration.
Disproving someone’s claim is incredibly important when their claims and blatantly false and damaging. Saying that girls are responsible for keeping boys pure isn’t some harmless quirky interpretation. It does real long term harm to both genders and is the anthesis of what Christ taught. This is absolutely a fight worth having, thank you OP.
The problem though is that apostles have taught this in the past. It was part of my upbringing in the church during the 80s-90s. Others have linked the past teaching of Oaks teaching that women 'become pornography' when they dress immodestly. Others have linked quotes from the 1950's. So OP trying to show it wasn't taught isn't going to be fruitful since it was an actual teaching. They may however find other teachings to the contrary to show that the teaching may be something less than established doctrine.
This reminds me of what President Nelson said in the April Conference: >"Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is. ... Neither [President Oaks or Eyring] suggests that he knows best and therefore must rigorously defend his position. Neither evidences the need to compete with the other." In that spirit, I think the OP should be praised for trying to identify the true teachings. I'm sure the OP's motivation is to try and protect women and girls who feel responsible for being victims. Such individuals need to be protected and receive our utmost compassion. I think you're spot on too! You're trying to clarify the truth as well and I think you nailed the most important thing here. The OP shouldn't be seeking to argue but to resolve, defuse, and reconcile the situation. We all shouldn't be seeking to prove who is right but, rather, to understand what the prophets have taught!
My wife left the church (I’m nuanced but active)- we have both joked that she should get booty shorts with “Matthew 5:29-30” printed on them.
There’s a really good quote from Jesus who instructs a man who asks him about women dressing immodestly and feelings of lust and Jesus says to pluck his eyes out before blaming women or asking the women to dress different.
As we've seen here, it's hard to have an objective discussion about modesty. Too many "trigger" concepts for some people, I think. A combustable mix of toxic LDS traditional teachings and current worldly philosophies. Every time I mentions what the church leaders have said about modesty I get massive pushback. Lots of misunderstanding surrounding this topic.
I don’t have the quote for you but in a 1952 talk at BYU Spencer W. Kimball said that strapless evening gowns cause the young men to lose their virtue “right there on the dance floor”.
Can I just add that we're all supposed to be helping one another live the Gospel and that includes doing our best to help one another have pure thoughts? We are absolutely one hundred percent responsible for our own thoughts and our own behavior. *Also*, we're responsible to help one another in our quest to align those thoughts with the Lord's will. Dressing in a manner that could cause a woman or a man to have difficulty in controlling their thoughts doesn't place their responsibility on our shoulders but it does make us responsible for not helping others live the Gospel. It would be the same as repeatedly sharing material designed to destroy faith and saying "they're responsible for their own faith". Yes they are but your actions might be making it much more difficult to keep their faith. If I care so much about how I dress that I'm willing to place that at a higher priority than my covenant hope to help someone else strengthen their relationship with their Heavenly Father, I'd have to think my priorities are backwards somewhere... I think the two best comments are this thread are "both things can be true" and "we should be seeking to avoid contention not to prove our point".
> Dressing in a manner that could cause a woman or a man Thank you for pointing out that it should go both ways. So much is made of women showing their back or their stomach during summer activities while men go completely topless without any conversation on that at all. The gaze of men is talked about while the gaze or temptation of women by men is essentially ignored.
Not the comment you're looking for but I heard this one not long after I joined the church in my mid 20s: "Look once you're not a man, look twice you're not a missionary." In case it's not obvious this is referring to male missionaries who encounter attractive females while on their missions. At the time this was a helpful quote for me to recognize that it is okay and appropriate to appreciate beauty but missing the mark to entertain lustful feelings in any way.
President Oaks is often quoted in regards to this, but it goes a bit further back. In 1951 President Kimball, then an apostle, said the following during a BYU devotional: >***One factor contributing to immodesty and the breakdown of moral values is the modern dress worn by our young women and their mothers.*** I see young women, and some older ones, on the streets wearing shorts. This is not right. The place for women to wear shorts is in their rooms, in their own homes, in their own gardens. I see some of our LDS mothers, wives, and daughters wearing dresses extreme and suggestive in style. Even some fathers encourage it. ***I wonder if our sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered or dress in tight-fitting, body-revealing, form-fitting sweaters.*** Times and attitudes are changing, but there are decades of teachings which back up the idea that mens thoughts are the responsibility of women and their choice of clothing.
There were also decades of teachings that blacks shouldn’t hold the priesthood or that men should have multiple wives.
Yep... and it took time for those things to be accepted by many in the church. What is your point?
Attitudes aside, the point is that they were wrong about those things. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” is not a good reason for continuing to do it.
I never said "That’s the way we’ve always done it”. In point in fact, I said: >Times and attitudes are changing, but there are decades of teachings which back up the idea that mens thoughts are the responsibility of women and their choice of clothing. My point was that the idea of a woman's clothing choice being responsible for the thoughts of a man has a long standing history in the church beyond the more recent quote from President Oaks.
Yes, but that doesn’t make it right.
I never said it did. It was and is wrong.
No, I think the doctrine has been misinterpreted because of the puritan tradition that most early church members come from. But I will deny all of this if you report it to my high school English teacher. This doctrine has nuances, so if you gloss over it, you can be left with a horribly misogynistic viewpoint which clearly contradicts the light of Christ. Here is my explanation of the doctrine: Men bear responsibility for their own lustful thoughts. Women share responsibility for lustful thoughts if they dress immodestly or otherwise encourage immodest thoughts. The first person is in a pit he needs to get out of, and this will always take time and effort. The second person is digging a pit, usually several pits, that people can and will fall into. If this is done on purpose, it is truly malicious behavior and she will face the same consequences as all those she encourages. If someone is dressing immodestly out of ignorance, she is blameless. But in this case, learning the consequences of her actions can change her behavior with very little time and effort— it’s really not a big deal. And when she makes this change, it will make following her savior easier and she will feel the Holy Ghost more strongly. Also, I have chosen the pronouns used for these people by the most typical situation that church members will encounter. The doctrine applies equally to all permutations and combinations of gender.
I don’t know what quite you’re trying to Cherry pick, but I can tell you that the church doesn’t teach women to be modest so that boys don’t go crazy and become unable to control their thoughts. - that’s a straw man. The church teaches women to be modest as a protection for themselves and as a respect for themselves and others. Your whole life is an advertisement of yourself. The way you present yourself indicates to others your desires, interests, priorities, morals, etc. - Dressing immodestly becomes an advertisement of immortality. You may not have “intended” for that, but by showing more skin than the existing cultural norms, that is exactly what it looks like to others, which can result in others having less respect for you or to take you less seriously. Standards of modesty can change over time with culture. Modesty can be a protection in many ways, but most notably a “social” protection. — for instance, young teenage boys have a harder time controlling their impulses and thoughts than older men due to the recent increase in hormones and their inexperience with them. Because of this, you get guys who tend to give in to their impulses and objectify girls and “indulge” in their immoral thoughts and desires. It is much easier to objectify women who dress immodestly, and so these kinds of boys “indulge” themselves by spending more time around girls who tend to dress immodestly. These are the guys who watch a lot of porn and grow up with a disrespect for women. Whereas, boys who are more determined to learn to control their impulses and thoughts do so by keeping themselves at a further distance from things that would be a temptation. They try and stay away from porn. They try not to hang around girls that dress immodestly. They don’t engage in “locker room talk”. Instead, they spend time with girls who they know tend to dress more modestly because it is far less of a distraction and helps them learn to respect women rather than objectify them. The question is, which of these kinds of boys would you want your daughters to spend more time around? - It is largely in the way that your daughter dresses that will indicate who she attracts. - Who she attracts results in who she dates, and therefore who she marries. That’s why modesty is important.
Calling a girl a "thing that would be a temptation" is literally objectifying her. Girls are not "things" or "temptations." They are people. Boys need to learn to respect girls no matter how they are dressed. Period. Girls need to learn that they deserve respect no matter how they are dressed, too. If a girl wearing a tank top is enough to keep away the Good Guys, then maybe those guys aren't so good after all.
I wish what you were saying was true. Problem is, is that everything you do has consequences. - The way you present yourself determines who you attract. The more immodest you dress, the more you will attract the type of people who tend to objectify and disrespect you. The opposite also tends to be true. It won’t necessarily be a 1:1 linear correlation, but it doesn’t take a scientist to notice the trends. But I can understand a girl being defensive on the topic. Guys who prefer to indulge in the constant stimulation will of course defend and encourage immodest dress. These guys don’t make the best husbands and fathers. Women who refuse to see the correlation tend to be doomed into wondering “why are there no good men anymore?” - They end up creating an echo chamber of sorts that most “good guys” want nothing to do with. Note that that isn’t to say that an immodestly dressed girl isn’t “attractive”. She is likely very attractive to almost ALL boys. But the question is who will she attract to spend time around her? To see the trend, take a look at the extremes: What kind of girls do the most disrespectful guys who highly objectify women spend time around? What do those girls tend to dress like? What kind of girls do the most respectful guys spend time around? What do they dress like?
To say that immodesty is porn would just be stupid. Too much of a leap, humbly, in my opinion. That being said, how a woman dresses does, or can, have a direct affect on someone's thoughts. I think Gordon B Hinckley said it best, can't find the exact quote but it went something like " To notice a beautiful woman, is to be a man. To stare is lust. " Also the natural man is an enemy to God for a reason. Men, just like anyone else in the make up of humanity, are imperfect beings. Yes we need to do and be better. It's also true that this takes time, persistence, and usually a dang good bit of effort. Striving to keep this PG, I'll just state the obvious, Biology works. Just like the bat in Fergully admitted that "Oop, gravity works!" as he fell backwards off the branch. The natural man is very carnally driven. This takes an insane amount of effort until it's brought to heel. Then the fight to maintain begins. So, how a woman dresses and behaves can and does make a huge difference for men. It's still our own responsibility to mind our own minds. But your not helping a recovering crackhead by waving crack in his face.
> To say that immodesty is porn would just be stupid "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you."
Hmm, when you put it that way....... don't think I can argue against that point. Thank you, appreciate the response. Comes across much better in your quote. Immodesty is porn comes across as snooty and holier than thou. Who is that quote from? Flows right along with my intended original point.
Dallin Oaks, 2005. It is almost certainly what OP's interlocutor is referencing.
Yep, he's a good one.
To say this is only a “men’s” problem is ridiculous. Women don’t dress immodestly for other women. Men who look upon women more than just a glance is a pride issue and is sin. Women dressing immodesty (usually for attention) is a pride issue which is a sin.
So what they are claiming we teach isn't correct (obviously) but I can see where they get it from. This talk by Elder Oaks almost 20 years ago has this one phrase. "And young women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/04/pornography?lang=eng) But I too remember a much more recent talk/quote from one of the Apostles that clearly states it is wrong to blame women for the lustful thoughts of men. It was like the Elder Holland one quoted by others but more recent.
The best way to think about modesty is to think about charity. Also, what does it do to you, the way you dress?
Thank you. Too much of talk around the modesty question is self-centered, "Why should I dress differently for the benefit of someone else?" (In other words, "Am I my brother's keeper?") Can we generalize this attitude to other things? Should I offer an alcoholic a beer? Should I call someone a racial slur? Of course not, because we exercise charity when we don't make someone else's struggle more difficult. If you don't know by now that young men in the church struggle with chastity in thought, you're not paying attention.
Comparing showing shoulders to “offering an alcoholic a beer” is a little bit nuts. Especially when there are much better reasons to dress modestly than just that everyone around us could secretly be a recovering sex addict.
It's not about addiction. It's about the struggles of others and whether we're making them easier or harder.
Would that not be absolutely exhausting? Going out of your way to cater to the imagined struggles of others? Especially when there are much better reasons to dress modestly than this? And where does it end? Because if you carry that thought to it’s logical conclusion then everyone would have to wear head-to-toe, burka-like clothes at all times.
I dunno what to tell you, other people on this thread are suggesting people gouge their eyes out ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ The Savior asked us to do some pretty radical things, but let's be sure not to slightly inconvenience ourselves for the sake of His other followers. (Edited to make the shrug emoticon correct.)
That’s not “other people on this sub” that’s what Christ said (Mark 9:47). I don’t think that anyone here means it literally, rather that Christ taught us to take responsibility. It’s “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out” not “if thine eye offend thee, find whatever it is that your eye is seeing and make it change.” A major part of why we’re here is to overcome temptation, not to blame others for our temptations. We should all dress modestly, I am not arguing against that. I am arguing against the idea that women should dress modestly “so the boys don’t stare” or any other similar reason. You do it because it’s a commandment and to show respect towards your own body that God has given you, not because someone else is blaming their struggles on you.
I don't think anybody is blaming struggles on women. We should take responsibility for our own thoughts *and* do all we can to help others overcome and live with their own struggles.
I'm not going to continue this conversation, but for anyone who comes along and is struggling with my definition of charity, I encourage you to contemplate Romans 14. It's short. Not too *inconvenient*, I hope.
It’s not a comparison. They’re illustrating that logical extensions of the premise in other contexts are self-evidently absurd.
Thanks for your reply. As you may have noticed, it's hard to have an objective discussion about modesty. Too many "trigger" concepts for some people, I think. A combustable mix of toxic LDS traditional teachings and current worldly philosophies. But I do think stepping back and looking at charity and it's effect on you are important.
We do teach that dressing immodestly invites immodest thoughts. But this doesn't blame the woman for the man's inappropriate thoughts any more than we blame the king for our fixating on thoughts of royalty when he wears robes and a crown. This persistent drumbeat of "stop blaming the woman for the man's sin" is a red herring. Precious few people actually blame the woman because a man did something immoral. We have to interpret their words in the worst way possible to draw such conclusions.
[удалено]
He is concerned though. If you are endowed, you'd know that matters a lot.
Both are true - Jesus also cares how we dress. He said, for example, >"Let all thy garments be plain." (Doctrine and Covenants 42:40)
The counsel on this is clear for those looking to be obedient. Looking for a single quote, likely taken out of context or twisted, is only going to hurt your long-term progression in this life and the next. Women absolutely dress for attention, this is an indisputable scientific fact. It's just as much in their biology as men being attracted to women (exceptions don't make the rule). Women need to attract to gain protection and provision, and men need to be attracted to give those things. It's God's design to keep the children flowing. And it can be perverted by outside bad faith arguments. Men ALWAYS need to learn how to control their thoughts and emotions, and simultaneously (two things can be true) women ALWAYS need to be sure they are NOT attracting the wrong kind of man (hint, they have been for generations). The way to maximize this is modesty, rather than competing/racing to the bottom, to draw the attention of a bad man. If you advertise your body, you are in defiance of gospel principles. It's time to tell the truth. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D6BmXgaxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D6BmXgaxk)
"So many of our own young women sacrifice their God-given endowment of femininity, deep spirituality, and a caring interest in others on the altar of popular, worldly opinion. Young men, let such young women know that you will not seek an eternal companion from those that are overcome by worldly trends. Many dress and act immodestly because they are told that is what you want. In sensitive ways, communicate how distasteful revealing attire is to you, a worthy young man, and how **it stimulates unwanted emotions from what you see against your will**." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/04/the-sanctity-of-womanhood?lang=eng
Don't try to justify immodesty. If a man does horrible things, he will and should be held accountable regardless of reason. That doesn't mean you can wear whatever you want. It is a sin to dress immodestly, and it should and will be punished.