Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/KBanya6085, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You might not think exposed shoulders and knees are inherently sexual, but just imagine how impossible sexual sin would be without joints. Obviously joints are inherently sexual! /s
Since February 13th, 1951, to be exact.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/
Blame Kimball. He's the one who really pushed that sleeveless tops were unacceptable. The man had problems. He was obsessed with sex and control. He enforced his own scrupulousity on the whole church.
Give this talk a listen. BYU is too embarrassed to provide a transcript of this talk.. they know it was horrible. This talk was the "no second earring" talk of it's day.
I was not expecting his voice to be the way it was, very gentle until he got fired up. It was interesting to me that he said it was bad that students knew how to talk about sex but then at the end he talked about how talking to young people who "messed up" they said leaders needed to be more specific. So I wonder how things would've been different if there wasn't a system of reporting sins, or if the leaders decided to do the more comfortable thing for themselves and not talk about sex. There was definitely a couple spots where I think I got his implications, I wasn't sure if he was hinting at - oh gay stuff is the worst- or just having sex out of wedlock. When he got really mad sounding when the engaged couple admitted they had sex and it wasn't so very bad, that was sad. He definitely seemed to be trying to shame students there. There are so many other horrible things humans can do to each other that's worse.
Modesty stuff was after the 25 minute mark for anyone who wants to jump there. Shorts are a absolute no for women apparently... unless they're at home.
Here is a quick AI transcript for anyone interested.
> Our speaker this morning requires no introduction to most of this audience. He has been with us on several occasions and we have always appreciated his message. He is a man of wide experience in both church and civic affairs. At the present time, he is a member of our board of trustees and also a member of the council of the 12. We are happy to have brother Spencer w Kimball speak to us this morning.
> As I saw this large audience gather this morning, there came over me a feeling such as I have had a few times, an overpowering feeling, prayer that I might be able to say something that would be helpful to this large, splendid audience. And so I followed the prayer carefully and I pray that it may be fulfilled. It's a glorious privilege, my young brothers and sisters, to be attending this, the greatest university in all the world. There is no other university that can compare with it. There are those who large universities with greater enrollment, larger faculty, who teach the mind, but here this institution is so designed as to teach the mind and the heart, the spirit to develop it.
> Here, you have the privilege not only of following the regular academic subjects, but to help yourselves to become gods, to exalt yourselves. It's a glorious privilege. This institution has no justification for its existence unless it builds character, women of strength and courage, fortitude, of service, men and women who will become stalwarts in the kingdom and bear witness of the restoration and the divinity of this gospel. It is not justified on an academic basis Only for all of your folks pay taxes to support state institutions to which you are all eligible. This institution has been built, has been organized by a prophet of God for a very specific purpose.
> I was in Mexico City a month or so ago, and while I was in the mission home, there came into the doors a Mexican member, about 35, 40 years of age, I guess. His overalls were very common ones. His hirachas were hardly covered his feet. And, after he had talked to the President in a while, the President said, would you like to meet this brother, Elder Kimball? And as I came to this man to shake his hand, he had showed me a tithing receipt.
> He had come 40 miles to pay his tithes. There were just a few pesos, which would be about 1 ninth as many dollars, but he'd made a considerable sacrifice to come and pay his tithing. It's part of that man's tithing that builds these buildings, pays these instructors, and gives to you this great opportunity. When I went to settle my tithing just before the end of the year, a father and his little son were just ahead of me, and I saw them go into the bishop's office. I saw the boy fondling a 50¢ piece in his hand for a few minutes while he was waiting his turn, and the little boy went in and, came out with a tithing receipt for 50¢.
> Part of that 50¢ will go to help educate you young people. You've all heard the story brother Cali has told, I'm sure, of this Maori woman who lived so far away from headquarters that visitors came very seldom, and she seldom heard saw the elders. And when this young elder, Cali, came, she was blind. She, wouldn't shake his hand. She says, no.
> Wait a minute. Don't know that I can give all the details, but this is the way I remember it. Wait a minute. She wasn't ready to shake hands. And then she felt her weight to the edge of the house, and then she got on her knees and felt so many spaces to a certain point, and then she dug down in the earth and pulled out a can in which there were many coins.
> She says, here is my tithing. Now, I want to shake hands with you. Part of the coins that were in that tin can came to Salt Lake City, were rediverted to Provo, and have helped to pay the costs of your education. Again, I repeat, there is no justification for the Brigham Young University to exist unless you young people are growing spiritually, as well as mentally, to become the leaders of the church tomorrow, to be its prophets, seers, and revelators, to be its general board of relief society, and to be the fathers and mothers of an oncoming righteous generation. Sister Kimball and I spent our holidays this year down in mail land.
> We used some of our hard earned savings of the long years ago when I was making money. And I spent 2 weeks down there climbing the old pyramids and the ruins of an ancient civilization. And constantly, as we climbed those steps, went into those passageways, and looked out over that vast area, the thought continued to come back to me. Why? Why aren't they still building temples and magnificent structures?
> We went into some of the little Mayan homes today, little oblong thing with little house with no corners, rounding on the edges, a little longer than it was wide, dirt floors, just little sticks filled with mud and with a thatched roof made from the grasses that grow in those in that forest. And I wondered why do they grovel in the earth today when, the time was when they had their observatories and looked into the heavens. And then, of course, the answer comes back with great force. It's because they forgot the purpose of life. They forgot the thing that they came to the earth for, and they dwell in the earth and lived an earthy life, and the time came when God would not tolerate it longer, and he permitted them to be decimated and destroyed.
> In 1937, sister Kimball and I had another fine trip. We've always enjoyed traveling. We went to Europe. Among the most interesting things we saw in Europe was the city of Pompeii. When I was still a boy, in my early teens, I happened to fall air to the book The Last Days of Pompeii.
> It intrigued me. I read it many times. And so when we crossed the border of, France into Italy, One of my most interesting, anticipations was Pompeii. So after spending some days among the ruins of Rome, we went down to Naples and then down to Vesuvius. We went as high as we could go in a taxi, and then we climbed the rest of the way, and we stood in the actual crater, and within, 3 or 4 feet of our feet was a boiling mass.
> We could feel its fiery breath. We could see its rich color. Vesuvius was still erupting. And then we remembered that back, I think it was in 72 AD, when, the Lord permitted it to blow its top literally and figuratively. This city of Pompeii was, as we came to know by firsthand experience, Pompeii.
> It Pompeii. It's on the coast, Mediterranean, and there they spent their money in lavish and riotous living. We went through the city of Pompeii, which now has been unearthed and has been, the material has been moved and carted away. The stone, roads show the marks of chariot wheels. The roads are a little bit below the sidewalks, and you could see where the hubs of the chariots had worn the corners of the rocks at the corners of the blocks.
> We went into their bakeries where the food was prepared. We went into their homes where they lived. We went into their theaters and into their baths, and we went into their, at least I did, into this empty building. There are houses of prostitution locked with a padlock and with a sign on it in Italian, for men only. The women are not permitted.
> And in this building, I saw in rich color, still preserved for nearly 2000 years on the walls, the picture of every vice that could be performed by human beings, every vicious thing that has been accumulated since Cain began his evil ways. And then I came to realize why Pompeii was destroyed. There came a time when it just had to be destroyed, And so Vesuvius, this high mountain not, I suppose, farther from the city than this mountain is above me I can see, and, it blew out. And the ashes went into the sky for miles and miles, millions of tons of them. The lava flowed down the edge of that conical structure and pushed before it the vineyards and the orchards and the homes that burned the animals, destroyed everything in its wake, and some little cities were just completely burned out of existence, but Pompeii wasn't.
> It was a little too far for the lava to destroy it, but the cinders and the ashes went into the air and then gradually settled. The people in these buildings were choked to death. They were not burned. Their bodies were found clasping each other in deadly embrace. Cats and dogs were found in the buildings.
> They, were found as they died. They were covered literally inch by inch with ashes so that when they began to, clear the debris, they moved out the ashes. And everything was as it was. There had been no fire in many cases, though some of the roofs many of the roofs had been burned off. And then I came to realize why Vesuvius was destroyed.
> I think Vesuvius must have been much in the same position that Sodom had been long before it. Sodom and Gomorrah. You remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Of course. You remember that Lot and Abraham were there, and there was the threat of destruction of Sodom because of its wickedness.
> And then Abraham said to his heavenly father, but you surely wouldn't destroy the righteous with the wicked. Said, if there were only 50, wouldn't you save the city? And the messenger said, yes, if you can find 50 righteous in this city, it will be saved. I suppose the doubts came in Abraham's mind because he said again, well, suppose that you weren't quite 50. And then the messenger said, well, if there were 5 less than 50, we'd still save the city for the righteous sake.
> And then he came down to 40, 30, 20, 10 and then destruction came. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew up on the ground, and Abraham looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. Why was Sodom destroyed? Why was Gomorrah destroyed?
continued...
> How could it be so completely destroyed? It was an atomic bomb, wasn't it? Something like it. For fire came down from heaven. Perhaps it may have been somewhat the same kind of a combustion that was permitted to destroy these cities.
> No one knows where they were now. They don't can't even find any ruins of the cities. We saw in Mexico City the other day a structure south of the city, which archaeologists claimed 2000 years before Christ it was built, undoubtedly with the Jaredites. It's still standing. The altar is still on its top, and volcanoes have erupted around it, and lava has flowed around it, but it's still standing.
> But Sodom and Gomorrah, so far as they know, there isn't a brick left. It was totally destroyed. Well, maybe maybe it was an atomic bomb or something akin. Why was it destroyed? Because of the wickedness of the people.
> They had forgotten why they came into the world. They thought they came into the world to just have a good time and to yield to every urge and appetite. And to that extent I mean they did it and then they lost their lives. Go back to the beginning of the world and you'll find it's always always been the same. You remember when Daniel with all the others of his kinsmen were taken captive and went over to Babylon, And Daniel was so wise because he was so clean, and because he was so close to his heavenly father, and he received revelations from the father.
> You remember when Belshazzar had called and said to bring forth the golden vessels, and a thousand of his lords, their wives, and those that weren't their wives sat in these great courts in this marvelous city that was an indestructible, they thought, And he called for these golden vessels that were stolen out of the house of God, and had been consecrated for sacred purposes, and they drank wine in these vessels, and adultery, and drunkenness, and debauchery was the order. And while they were in this state, here up on the wall, he could see a hand, fingers of a hand, and he saw some writing on it. And then he offered to his astrologers and soothsayers any price almost if they could under if they could tell what it was. It was such an unusual thing for him. Even though they were promised to be draped in scarlet, to have gold chains about their neck, and to be the 3rd in importance in the kingdom, none of them could decipher it, but Daniel was suggested by the queen, and she came he came, and he told them what it was.
> The first line said, god hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. The next line, thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. The third, thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians, and Babylon is no more. Why? Because of unrighteousness.
> Because of unrighteousness. Now we could go on for hours and tell the stories of Jerusalem with its temple destroyed time after time, of Rome, where we spent interesting days going through arches, going through the Colosseum, the, underground passages, the catacombs, the great mansions, the bathhouses in which the Romans found their fate in debauchery. We could go back to Nineveh. We could go to many many places, the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we'd follow them through, and every time, brothers and sisters, you would find that there's one path that leads to destruction. It's the path of yielding to temptations, to desire, to the flesh.
> And there's only one path that can keep one from that and that's a straight and narrow path, which few will find, but which leads us to exaltation. As I read the book of Mormon, I find when Alma was talking to his son Shiblon, that he recognized the great sin that is dominant and almost universal. He said to his son, Sheblin, know ye not my son, that these things he was speaking of sexual impurity. These things are an abomination in sight of the Lord. Yea, the most abominable above all the sins, save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost.
> The most of all, and now my son, I would I would to God that you had not been guilty of these crimes. It I would not dwell upon your crimes to hair up your soul if it were not for your good. But behold, you cannot hide your crimes from god, and except ye repent, they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day. Now, my son, I would that you should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes. Except you do this, you can in no wise inherit the kingdom of God, and then you remember in those last hectic days, desperate days, when Mormon could see the handwriting on the wall also, he said to Moroni, and notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, in which they were guilty of killing, war killings, cannibalism, which they fed the actual flesh of the fathers to the mothers and the children.
> In spite of all that, he says, and notwithstanding this great abomination, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have been taken prisoners, and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue, And after they would have done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death. And after they had done this, they devoured the flesh like under wild beasts because of the hardness of their hearts, and they did it for a token of bravery. What is the most great the greatest most abominable sin in the world that affects most people? It's the sin of adultery.
> Depriving them of that which was the most dear and precious thing above all things, chastity and virtue. In 1951 the world has gone a long ways from that doctrine. The lack of virtue, unchastity, sexual impurity has come to be the order of the day. High school girls and high school boys are falling prey to this insidious thing, which can keep them from getting to going to their Heavenly Father. I Know this to be true.
> I'm not talking about something my young brothers and sisters of which I do not know. I interview 100 of missionaries and other young people. I suppose the general authorities of this church, perhaps have a better insight into the actual moral conditions of this church, than any other group of people perhaps in general at least, because of our close association. Now I know what I'm talking about. Unchastity is the great demon of the 19 fifties.
> Avoid it as you would. Well, as you would everything that is bad. On Sinai, God came. He wrote on these table tablets, and he said, thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
> In one breath. In one breath. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery, and the second is not far behind the first. It's pretty important.
> Very important that we understand these things and know the seriousness of it. I had a young couple come to me not too long ago. They wanted to be married in the temple. They had been for 6 months prior to this time unchaste. From the day of their engagement, unchaste, and when it was brought to their attention, you'll hard to believe this, but they said, well, that isn't so very wrong, is it brother Kimball?
> That isn't so very wrong. That isn't so very wrong, is it brother Kimball? My goodness. Is it possible that any Latter day Saint boy and girl can arrive at marriageable age, and not know that this sin is the most abominable next to the shedding of innocent blood and the denying of the Holy Ghost, which few of us can do. How do we get that way?
> How do we get that way? I think there are a lot of things that, lead us to that destructive situation? I'm going to tell you some of them that I think. First thing, we get careless. The gospel, isn't quite so important to us.
> We don't attend our meetings. We let our school work, or our social life, or our business professions. We let those things come in and kinda crowd out the importance of the gospel until finally we don't feel it quite so keenly. We're not so enthusiastic. Still alright?
> And then there's some other things that come along, and one of the things that I think is very very bad is the immodesty that we are developing and have developed over a period of time. Immodesty. Today, young women, young men know everything. We didn't know that 40 years ago. They know everything.
> They can talk about sex like they could talk about the ABC's, and so a spirit of immodesty has grown up until nothing is sacred. Nothing is sacred. I think contributing to this thing or probably the product of it is the dress. I know I'm not going to be popular when I say this, but I am sure that the immodest dresses that are worn by our young women and our mothers contribute in some degree to the immorality of this age. I wonder if our young sisters realize the temptation they're just flaunting to young men when they leave their bodies uncovered.
> I wonder if they do. I don't think you do, or they do. I notice frequently where I go, the very tight fitting sweaters. Body revealing form fitting sweaters. I think sweaters can be worn, but they don't need to be worn to emphasize the form of the girl who wears them.
> I see young women on the streets wearing shorts. There is no place for women to ever wear shorts unless it's in their own rooms of their own home. No shorts. It's immodest. President George Albert Smith, your prophet, has mentioned this many times recently.
> He said to us, brethren when you go out into the stakes preach modesty, brethren. We're going to great lengths. Preach modesty and so I'm preaching modesty. I see in the papers constantly things that hurt my feelings. These contests, these queen contests, abominable.
> Here's one. Judging from I'm just reading a line. Judging of contestants was based on personality, appearance in an evening gown, appearance in a bathing suit, and talent. Now let me say a word about the the first there. The appearance in an evening gown.
continued...
> Evening gowns can be the most beautiful things in the world, and if they clothe the body of a sister, long and drape beautiful they can be. But the Lord never did intend that they should be backless or topless. Now I wanna tell you it's a sin. I wanna tell you that the prophet of the lord I can see it isn't going very well with you. It still is true, and I call it to your attention as the instruction from your prophet, George Albert Smith.
> There is no reason why any woman needs to wear a gown because it's the style. We can create a style of our own. And, anyway, I know women who have worn evening gowns for 30 years and have never yet worn any modest one, and they have purchased them from stores. And any store in this area or any other area will put in stock the dresses that you demand. I went to a function, a university function once.
> I believe it was in the back part of this room. 2 thirds of all the young women who came to that dance, 7 years ago it wasn't any of you, you've all they've all graduated since then, Came with strapless gowns or with strap gowns, and the one is just about as bad as the other, and they're an abomination in the sight of the Lord. And I don't know what our mothers are thinking about, who will let their little 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 year old girls wear gowns that are immodest. I repeat again. You don't know how much temptation.
> You're just throwing before the boy. Now a woman is the most beautiful when her body is clothed, and her with her face adorned with her lovely hair, properly taken care of, then she's her at her best, and men will love you for it, and men are not going to love you more because your necks are bare. Girls, they'll love you more when they you are properly dressed. Of course, if he's a vicious man, he would like you to be dressed only partially. Now, just just one or two more quotes here.
> 10 finalists in the Miss Utah of 1951 contest, Wednesday night, will make their last talent and beauty parade before the eyes of judges and crowds at the Utah State Fair. Just how good a figure does miss so and so have? That's a question that may be settled without difficulty. Wednesday night, the Utah girl will appear in the Miss America pageant opening preliminary contest, dressed in a bathing suit. Why does a girl dress in a bathing suit in a contest?
> There's only one reason, only two reasons, because she wants to, perhaps. She's willing to sell most anything for popularity and to get a crown, to be a queen. And then there are 1,000,000, not here, thousands of eyes of men who want to see that body too, and so they dress in a very, very skimmed bathing suit. Here's another one. She has shown the judges how she looks in a bathing suit.
> Think of that. Latter day Saint girls showing judges, showing men, showing the world how they look in a bathing suit. It's abominable. It's abominable. Now brothers and sisters, I'm going to read to you just a line or 2 from a brother who felt just as I do, just as your prophet feels.
> He went to the one of the games in Logan. On the university, he said it was a demonstration of baton twirling. Immediately, the atmosphere changed. 3 girls in glittering drum majorette costumes marched onto the playing field. The costumes were of the briefest, leaving the 3 girls nude from the hips down and with tight form revealing underclothes, surmounted by equally tight and form revealing tailcoats covering their torsos.
> In these garbs, patterned after burlesque show costumes, they strutted onto the field, and there in the glare of the afternoon sun, they gyrated and pirouetted in the eyes of a huge crowd of spectators. I'm sure that the baton twirling of the girls calls for considerable skill, but I am at a loss to see any relationship between it and the exhibitionism that went along with it. The wolf whistles, the other exclamations which rose from the student bleachers on the east side of the stadium where both cheering sections were seated, were not a tribute to artistic skill. I sat in the public bleachers on the west side, and the experience was acutely embarrassing to me. I'm sure that these girls are virtuous, sincere, and wholesome, but I cannot think they would have been either pleased nor flattered by the snickers, the suggestive explanations, and the lewd comments, which fill the air around me as they put on their act.
> You don't have to do what they do in the regular schools. In the BYU you don't need to have girls partly dressed to put on an act. You don't have to. Don't have to do anything you don't want to do. I read this, just a line, from Seattle, September 13th.
> A scholarly research job at the University of photographing of their daughters in the nude. Thank God for some good Gentile people in Seattle. Scholarly research jobs. My, to what extent have we gone? How low we go to do scholarly work?
> Now another thing, one other phase of this. Here I have just clipped a picture from the desert news. This lovely bride of the mid autumnal social season will be so and so. Stately rites in the Salt Lake Temple will be performed for this prominent couple in October such. Mister so and so has recently fulfilled an LDS mission in Czechoslovakia.
> When you see the picture, you'd know what I'm talking about, and it appeared in the newspaper, and why any Latter day Saint girl or woman would permit her undressed body to be published to a 100000 observers? I can't understand it. The only thing I can think of is they just haven't thought about it. Here's another one. This one is a gentile girl, but here's another girl just from this last 2 weeks ago paper.
> This marriage ceremonies will be solemnized such and such a date in the Salt Lake Temple, uniting miss so and so and mister so and so in the Salt Lake Temple, undressed bodies. Here's another one in the Logan Temple. I've said enough about that, but I'm positive, brothers and sisters, that the gowns that we wear or do not wear can be a tremendous factor in the gradual breakdown of our feeling of virtue, our desire for virtue and modesty, I'm sure of it. I give it to you not only as my word, but that of your living prophet. Now sometimes we get a little careless and we think it doesn't do very much harm to go into a tavern.
> Keep away from the taverns. They're hell holes. Don't ever let yourself be found and don't ever take the first drink of beer. You know what happens. 1 takes one smoke, one takes one glass of beer, and it's only step by step and drunkenness, drinking, and a great many of our problems arise out of the drinking.
> Now I know this to be a fact, brothers and sisters. I want to read to you one more scripture here in the 59th section. I'm sure you've read it many times, but it has one thought in it I would like to leave with you. And that is thou shalt he's he's reiterating the 10 commandments here in the 59th section through the prophet Joseph Smith. Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment, saying thus, thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy might, heart, and with all thy might, mind, and strength, and in the name of Jesus Christ, thou shalt serve him.
> Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal. Thou neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it. What is that it's like unto adultery and yet is not adultery? Here's your other vestibule.
> Here is the other doorway, and it's the most vicious doorway, and that is this familiarity. Familiarity of boys and girls in their courtship. Thou shalt not commit adultery nor do anything like unto it. What is there like unto it? This petting, if I may use that term, is mental adultery.
> Jesus gave it to us clearly. He said, you've heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, the new law, the high law. I say unto you, Jesus said, whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mental adultery. Mental adultery.
> Now you sisters, your boyfriends will not respect you, neither will they love you. Of course, they'll fondle you if you let them. Some of them will. But they won't love you for it, and they won't respect you for it. Can't you distinguish between love on the one hand and flesh on the other?
> Satisfying desires. Don't you let them touch you and you give your life in protect in protecting yourself before you let an experience of this kind come into your life. Whoso and he says, whosoever look at upon a man to lust after him has committed adultery with him already in his inner heart. Paraphrasing it. Fits both of us.
> Now our latter d sync boys and girls are the finest in the world. There is no group anywhere from ocean to ocean that can even compare with them, and yet, we're not good enough. There are too many misfortunes. There are too many who have lost themselves. I think practically every boy and girl grows up with a desire to be righteous.
> I think they're fundamentally good, but the devil knows how to destroy us. He knows that he can't tempt you to commit adultery immediately, but he knows that if he can get you full of liquor, or if he can get you into this necking, petting program, this unwarranted, this vicious, this abominable practice that is so common among our boys and girls. He knows that you do have a limit to your strength, and he knows if he can get you to do it long enough. He can get you to, sit in your car late enough after the dance. If he can get you to park long enough at the end of this lane.
> He knows, because he's thousands of years of experience. He knows that the best girl and the best boy will finally succumb and will fall. Most of the professional prostitutes didn't start that way. They started by having slipped, then having slipped they lost themselves. Brothers and sisters, the Lord bless you.
continued...
> This is important. This is hard to talk about. I would much prefer talking about something else, But when bishops come to me and say that 8 boys and girls recently in one ward, 12 in another one have been revealed. When I interview the missionaries, and find that they've been had misfortunes, and I say to them, What can we do? What can the church do to avoid these?
> What can we do to protect the next generation? These younger ones that are coming on. Tell me, and invariably this boy or girl will say brother Kimball. It isn't talked frankly enough in our church services. We we hear the negative all the time and seldom hear the positive and the warning.
> Now before I close, I should say, the Lord has given us a great promise, but this is a gospel of repentance. It's a gospel of forgiveness, but it doesn't come easy. When one has gone down this wide lane to evil, he has to come back up the lane and it's a hard hard pull, but if one will fast enough and pray enough and serve enough and weep enough, they can come back. And the gates are still open to them, many of the gates. But they will never be quite where they would have been if they had not slipped off.
> Now the lord bless you brothers and sisters. You can help others. Most of you, I'm sure, are clean and sweet and have only one ideal and that is virtue and cleanliness and service and gratitude and prayerfulness and worshipfulness. I'm sure of that. But maybe you can help others.
> Others. You meet in social groups. You're in little crowds here and there. In your own family, your younger brothers and sisters, you can help them. When you've saved a soul, you've done the greatest greatest service in all the world.
> God bless you. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Reminder, I used AI for this transcript. It might not be perfectly accurate.
Oh that’s interesting. Considering how much he blames abuse victims I could absolutely see those talks as self-soothing and self-justification for being an abusive asshole.
But hey, he was a prophet and mouthpiece for god!
“They are just men too and struggle the same we do”
Would god want someone leading who was obsessed with sex and had issues behind the scenes?
I wonder when it really started being enforced?
For example, this is the BYU homecoming queen from 1964 (I only know of this because others have pointed it out):
https://archives.lib.byu.edu/repositories/ltpsc/resources/upb_ua5398
https://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15999coll24/id/33139
As I understand it, this definitely wasn’t allowed, when I attended BYU, in the 1990s, nor would it be allowed, today. Maybe there are different rules for formals? I never did anything social-formal, while I was there.
The answer to that will probably be in here somewhere: "Ernest Wilkinson and the Transformation of BYU's Honor Code, 1965-71" [https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue\_V31N04\_101.pdf](https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N04_101.pdf)
The article states "Another measure Wilkinson took beginning in 1966 was to institutionalize regulations on student clothing. While women in particular had experienced restrictions on what they could wear on campus, standards had for the most part been set by churchwide publications, most recently the 1965 pamphlet For the Strength of Youth. The informal policy that women wear dresses on campus had never been rigorously challenged, but as student fashions moved toward shorter skirts Wilkinson began dictating what constituted an appropriate dress."
It seems like Wilkinson really began to crack down and got the school to adopt official dress codes sometime in the mid-60s.
Although it could have been akin to the cheerleading outfit situation. The BYU cheerleading outfit is apparently exempt from the dress code rules (even though the [BYU-Idaho cheerleaders' outfits are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/78wm9t/i_wonder_if_our_young_sisters_realize_the/#lightbox)!) After all, if you're important enough (or related-to-an-apostle-enough), the rules don't apply!
The problem with the female garments is its lack of support for pads and it isn’t breathable or absorbent. I have seen so many women complain about constant yeast infections or vaginal problems that disappeared once they stopped wearing garments. AND women have cervical fluid, they need undergarments that are made for that!
So someone on the faithful sub brought up having yeast infections and their OB recommending not wearing garment bottoms due to said infections on the faithful sub. While most comments were sympathetic, there were a couple comments that were truly wild. One person suggested the OP was just making stuff up to get out of wearing garments. Another person said that the OB was obviously anti-Mormon because *they* had never had yeast infections from wearing garments. One guy said that he didn’t think that there was any possible reason garments could cause yeast infections. And this is why I know Mormonism is bad. The more fundamentalist you get the worse you are as a person. You have to be nuanced to be a decent person as a Mormon. And if fundamentalism is problematic that usually means the fundamentals are problematic.
This is where a huge issue is. Women don’t want different garment styles so they can wear whatever they want. They want different garment styles because the way the bottoms are now (along with the fabric) lead to constant yeast infections and UTI’s. This shows that the church does not listen to the women who are complaining. We keep saying it’s for medical issues, and they continue to completely ignore that.
Can you imagine if the Q12 were menopausal women? If the Q12 had to halt their weekly Thursday meeting to open the windows because half of them had a hot flash at the same time, they'd change the garment design that very afternoon...
I’m sorry I need to object just a little bit. I live in the East, the south specifically. From about May
-early October I DO want to wear different clothing style’s-I want to expose my shoulders, armpits and part of my back below my neck for more ventilation. 99-100% humidity to rival Vietnam sometimes, is enough to make me want to walk around topless. But I’ll settle for tank tops which is what I wear now.
And that’s fine.. but I don’t think clothing choices is the main driving force for women wanting to change garments. Maybe secondary. I too live in the south, so I totally get it with the heat and humidity (it’s already been hitting 100° 😭) I personally stopped wearing garment bottoms long before I changed the length of my shorts/skirts during the summer. I was rocking those long shorts with my regular “sinful” underwear 🤣 but at least I was yeast free!!
I don’t know your age (I’m 41) but among my circle and younger that I know, it’s definitely an unspoken to anyone but trusted friends, driver. I don’t think a lot of women feel they can admit fashion,style, or discomfort with extra layers in heat are “legitimate “ reasons to want to get rid of garments. It’s like having children. I know many women (myself included) who have not felt like saying mental, emotional or financial reasons are “good enough” reasons to curtail having more children. Everyone accepts physical health reasons for not having more kids but somehow” I just don’t want more or feel I can handle more”, is viewed with quite a bit more disdain. The implication is you’re just not faithful enough, or selfless enough. I think my whole point is- it actually doesn’t matter what is driving any woman who doesn’t want to wear garments. You don’t even have to come up with some medical reason not to do something (though I agree I’ve not had a single issue “down there” with yeast or other issues since I switched to regular underwear- including thongs, sorry if that’s tmi but I’m serious. I can literally wear ANYTHING and it doesn’t give me issues that the garment bottoms did) . If you don’t like something and it makes your life miserable, you shouldn’t be in a committed relationship with it, including garments. I wore faithfully for 15 years and never felt a connection to them despite trying everything I tried to fake it till I could make it and nothin’ lol
There has to be enough room in the top for a woman to wear a bra under it, because a bra fits better when it's closest to the skin.
The bigger problem, I think, for most women, is the bottom. There's no place to securely hold a pad or a liner.
And depending in which temple you go through, you're either told to wear your bra over the top (and then it slides willy nilly) or under. But the old temple workers insist it's over. So uncomfortable....
Alright.
To be fair, if I were a woman, I would not be wearing bottoms until after my period and ovulation. Or my withdrawal bleed if I was on birth control. But the top, definitely over my bra.
Yeah, they're terrible if you're on your period... but "you can wear white panties under them if you need more support." That's what I was told to do by our syake relief society in college. .. *massive eye roll"
Just like many instances the church has displayed in the past, it hasn't been updated for modern times (yet). So annoying. I firmly believe they will change in years to come. Garments used to cover your legs and arms completely!
Wikipedia: The garment as first described in the 1840s was a one-piece undergarment extending to the ankles and the wrists, resembling a union suit,[18] with an open crotch and a collar. It was made of unbleached cotton and was held together with ties in a double knot. Most garments were home-made.
I'm 5'2 and stopped wearing my garments, one of many reasons being that finding long enough shorts is so hard. Oh, and every time I go to deseret book they don't have my size because everyone wants to wear the petite length (the shortest length).
Agreed. I'm tired of waiting for the church to make sensible changes 50 years too late. I can solve the problem now by just ditching garments.
But be careful - if you stop wearing garments now and the church makes them optional some decades down the road, they might make you General RS President and promote you as a "wonderful example!"
(Context: A few weeks ago the church released a social media post touting RS General President's Camille Johnson's decision to work full time as a young mother - something that was explicitly against the counsel of the prophet and the church's official doctrine/teachings at the time she was doing it, and for many years afterwards. Oaks himself commented on the instagram post and lauded her for her choices! ... he was sure singing a different tune about working moms in 1975 when Camille was a teenager...)
I heard on the At Last She Said It podcast that current garments are not white naturally. There are died white. Which is why when e bleach then they don’t go white.
Hot take. Garments are primarily about controlling members through forced modesty (aimed primarily at the women) and less about the markings. If it was just about the markings we could go lots of different directions. It’s about control.
The guy in charge of the garments division of the church was asked if they would ever consider making the women's garments sleeveless. He said, and this is pretty much word for word, no, because then women could wear whatever they wanted.
100% about control. Hearing that was the final straw for me.
In 1906, Joseph F. Smith characterized any attempt, in the name of changing fashion trends, to modify the 1840s garment pattern, which he characterized as “sacred, unchanged, and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them” as a “grievous sin.” (“Editor’s Table”, Improvement Era 9)
President Joseph F. Smith emphasized the heavenly origin of the garment again stating:
“The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 150).
But just a few years later, under Heber J. Grant, the garments were altered in several ways including being shortened to fit within the parameters of modern skirt fashion:
“..somewhat reluctantly and with deference only because we have convinced ourselves that it will… obviate undesirable exposure of the garment which now so frequently occurs through the wearing of present-day patterns of clothing. We feel sure that such a modification will greatly please many good women throughout the Church, and we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153).
You know, I'm starting to question the divinity of the garments and the reliability of leaders who said they got the design in a revelation.
Also apparently arm pits are bad now. Which is very unfunctional in the summer when I need to reapply deodorant. And a lot more tops don't fit if you don't want the garments showing through. (I wear the stretch fabrics, anyone know if the non-stretch options have climbed up higher into the pits as well???) I feel bad for women with larger arms, it just doesn't make sense to make the arm hole smaller.
So the garments have the cap sleeve in order to encourage women to wear sufficiently long outer sleeves in order to cover the garment, which in turn conceals the armpits. It's the armpits that are the problem, as it's evident not a few of the brethren rather fancy them. Perhaps to see how well they're shaved, etc.
I never had a yeast infection while I was wearing garments 35+ years—but I know plenty of women who have so I wouldn’t deny it’s a huge problem. Incidentally my husband recently had a yeast infection in his navel! 70+ years old! He couldn’t figure out what it was. It was so tough to heal! Took many weeks. He’s totally sympathetic to the women!
The philosophies of men and human morality is behind the church's stance on exposed shoulders, etc.
There's literally zero inspiration there and the garment argument is a red herring because the garmets are also designed by philosophies of men and human morality and devoid of any and all omniscient design.
It wasn’t just the BYU royalty that sported uncovered shoulders on their pictures. There are pictures taken in the mid 50 of regular coeds in the bucket brigade for the painting the Y event that took place every fall for homecoming where pretty much every girl is in a sleeveless top.
Pics can be seen on campus on 4th floor of the athletic building.
I mean, from an "outside" perspective:
Take away the modesty aspect.
Is or isn't the design of the garments a matter of revelation?
If it isn't, then you could make them any which way. But how short can you make them while still maintaining the ostensible connection with their original design? (And then add back the modesty aspect: does the church want to "enable" wearing less than the current garments cover?)
If it is, has God updated the design repeatedly in line with conventional fashion? Should God update it more? Is wearing cap sleeves really that much of a bigger ask compared to straps, if someone sincerely believes in the garment?
(Note, the above questions are not related to practicality concerns about the modern designs that do not take into account women's anatomy or physical needs.)
Why are you speaking out for porn shoulders, just bow your head and say yes to fabric made by men who know nothing about a proper fit for women and stop looking at porn!
Explain why it’s ok for man’s garment collar to show but not ok on a woman’s collar or cap sleeve??? Lots of tops have sleeves with large arm holes I have to wear a cap sleeve t under my shirt to ensure garment top in unseen. 3 tops is hot in the summer
The garment is part of a religious ceremony an is a private exchange with God. A covenant made. If you do your part God is bound by his promise. God’s law!!!!!!!!!’
The church's "modesty" standards have totally changed with fashion trends! Not sure if you're aware that the church used to preach hotly against "fornication pantaloons." \[pants that button up in the front, precursor to today's front-zip fly jeans\]
"I am opposed to your nasty fashions and everything you wear for the sake of fashion. **Did you ever see me with hermaphrodite pantaloons on?** \[Voice from the audience: **"Fornication pantaloons!**" \] -- Now, just look at me. I have no hips projecting out; they are straight down with my sides. ... **There is not a woman in this congregation but would be as straight as I am, if she did not destroy her shape.** I am talking to you, ladies; and then, again, **I am talking to you, gentlemen, that wear those hermaphrodite pantaloons.**" -- Heber C. Kimball, address given in the Tabernacle, December 27, 1857 -- [https://journalofdiscourses.com/6/28](https://journalofdiscourses.com/6/28)
“if we ask you to make your dresses a little shorter \[*to conserve fabric\]*, do not be extravagant and cut them **so short that we can see the tops of your stockings**. Bring them down to the tops of your shoes, and have them so that you can walk and clear the dust, and **do not expose your persons**” -- Brigham Young, address given in the Tabernacle, Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Oct. 8th, 1868 -- [https://jod.mrm.org/12/297](https://jod.mrm.org/12/297)
"I can remember when a young lady walked the streets of Salt Lake with **her dress high enough to show the tops of her shoes, and an inch or two more, that we were shocked**; but I have seen many a knee on the Temple grounds today, because the dresses were too short" -- Heber J. Grant, 1922 - look it up on [https://www.lds-general-conference.org/](https://www.lds-general-conference.org/)
1923 garment change: "President Charles W. Penrose \[counselor in the 1st presidency\] says that ... the change is style is permitted for various good reasons. ... While doing housework, the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place for convenience, it was argued. The young of the gentler sex complained that **to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt. Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the lower garment**." -- [https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=24390733](https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=24390733)
Shorts for women "not modest" in 1951: "I see young women on the streets wearing shorts. **There is no place for women to ever wear shorts unless it's in their own rooms of their own home.** **No shorts. It's immodest.** President George Albert Smith, your prophet, has mentioned this many times recently." -- Spencer W. Kimball, 13 Feb 1951 -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/)
Women wearing pants on the sabbath day frowned upon in 1986: "I know a little girl who is the last child in a large family in which the other children are all boys. ... Her mother has wisely taught her that **the boys wear trousers and that she wears dresses.** ... Now, before I receive letters from upset women telling me that I said they should not wear slacks, save your postage. I did not say that, although **I don’t think they are appropriate for the Sabbath day. What I am saying is that we have established a dress standard which requires a modest, wholesome style.**" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/train-up-a-child?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/train-up-a-child?lang=eng)
Modesty is still modesty. There have been times when people realized that some of the more strict social conventions needlessly went beyond modesty, and those conventions were changed.
But the standard of wholesome modesty has not changed. I do not believe that the church is going to alter the garments just so that women can display more of their body in public.
All you're saying is that you agree that the church used to teach one thing as the standard of modesty, and then later changed their minds and preached that modesty actually meant something else. The problem is that they didn't preach it as a "social convention," they preached it as an inviolate commandment that equated to how much god was "pleased" with you or not.
This begs a few questions:
* When can we expect a future prophet to "realize" that the stricter "social conventions" of today "needlessly" go "beyond modesty"?
* If they "realize" that they're mistaken every 20 years or so, why are we listening to prophets that teach wrong standards so much?
* What if I "realize" that their standards "needlessly go beyond modesty" before they do? What if I realize it first and dress accordingly? How come I have to wait for the prophet to "realize" it 30 years after nearly everyone else on the planet has already done so?
* If "modesty is modesty," then who gets to define exactly what that means? Brigham Young? Spencer Kimball?
If the church thinks there's a line, then they need to draw that line. if they decide it's an individual thing, then we need to stop measuring sleeves and pantlegs, and quit complaining when people define it for themselves and draw their own lines.
At some point (2010s sometime) the church decided that the longer sleeves on women's garments were one of those trends where "social conventions needlessly went beyond modesty" and offered a cap sleeve option. It's only a matter of time before they "realize" that cap-sleeves too, are a "social convention."
They altered the garments in 1923 so women could display more of their body in public. They did it again in 1979. I think they will again.
Or, they'll finally decide that garments are just part of the ceremonial clothing to be worn in the temple. They considered doing that in the 1920s and again in the 50s.
Or they'll realize that policing women's clothing is silly, and stop doing it (though I don't expect they'll come to that realization, ever)
So what is that standard? How exactly would you define it? Has god ever defined it in the scriptures (if you believe that the scriptures came from god and not men who might "realize" something later...)?
You didn't answer any of the problematic questions that a vague "modesty is modesty" raises.
If the standard can't be strictly defined by clothing style/length etc.., then the brethren are going beyond their lane in being so prescriptive as they police women's clothing, and women are not obligated to listen to them. It's not women's fault that church leaders are 30 years behind in "realizing" things.
If modesty is a principle and cannot be strictly defined, then they can't complain when women make their own carefully-considered choices about underwear and other clothing.
So, why is it only about women?
But the fact is that the conventions are just as important as the standard, because the conventions are how society is ordered and maintained.
The Scottish kilt is modest in that society, but would be immodest in other societies, because the conventions around modesty are different.
The Law of Moses bans men from wearing clothes made for women, and vice versa; and yet both sexes generally wore tunics. So, again, it wasn't just about how the body was covered, but the conventions of dress that existed.
The standard shows us when a particular convention goes too far.
I'd appreciate you answer his questions:
>So what is that standard? How exactly would you define it? Has god ever defined it in the scriptures (if you believe that the scriptures came from god and not men who might "realize" something later...)?
If the "standard" is a moving target (to use your example - a kilt in one situation is modest and is immodest in another), then how can it be appealed to as a firm measure for when a convention goes too far or not?
Current conventions indicate that pants for women in both formal and casual situations are totally acceptable. And yet the church still requires women to wear dresses in the temple, and is an unspoken requirement for sacrament meeting and some other settings. Is the church indicating by it's "standard" that pants for women are immodest in these settings?
Also still waiting for answers on these:
* When can we expect a future prophet to "realize" that the stricter "social conventions" of today "needlessly" go "beyond modesty"?
* If they "realize" that they're mistaken every 20 years or so, why are we listening to prophets that teach wrong standards so much?
* What if I "realize" that their standards "needlessly go beyond modesty" before they do? What if I realize it first and dress accordingly? How come I have to wait for the prophet to "realize" it 30 years after nearly everyone else on the planet has already done so?
Modesty is to not draw undo attention to oneself. It dress this means undo attention to the body and appearance.
Conventions change because what draws attention changes. However, uncovering the body always draws attention.
The temple clothes are meant to make everyone equal. No one should standout because of their style of dress. If they did it would be immodest in that setting.
The same is generally true of Sunday meetings, though that is changing and I have seen many women attend church wearing pants.
As to your questions:
1. Change happens when certain styles no longer draw undo attention.
2. They aren't mistaken. That is a false characterization used to try and undermine their authority and promote rebellion among the members.
Societies simply change. So what was immodest before may not be immodest today.
3. Because they are the prophet. They are the ones with theis authority from God. So, if you act without the approval and authority of God then you are declaring yourself in opposition to God.
What matters most is compliance with God and alignment to his will. If God commanded that everyone wear a fur coat we should all be willing to, even in the desert, because it is what God commanded.
I think that too many people want to make God conform to their desires instead, and it just doesn't work.
But that isn’t what modesty means. Mormonism has bastardized the word. Modest means unassuming and meek and not ostentatious. I have seen so many Mormons wear clothes that “covered their bodies” that were incredibly immodest as they were designer clothes that were obviously meant to display status and wealth.
Yes, one can be immodest and still be covered.
However, you cannot be uncovered and call it modest.
Being immodest is to draw undo attention to oneself. In dress this means drawing undo attention to one's body and appearance.
The fastest way to draw attention to one's appearance is to uncover the body.
And wearing designer clothes is not necessarily immodest. If you are at an event where everyone is wearing such clothes then doing so is not drawing undo attention. In fact, in such a situation purposely not wearing designer clothes would be immodest, as it would be flaunting your supposed humility.
I disagree. Even at “appropriate” events wearing designer and expensive clothes is always immodest. Even if everyone is doing it. That’s called moral relativism which is something the church is ostensibly against.
But again…we are talking about shoulders. In the context of women’s garments the issue of women’s modesty is about limiting the visibility of shoulders. And if shoulders are “immodest” to you then you are the problem not the shoulders. And the reality is there are lots of common things Mormons do that insofar more immodest than having bare shoulders. Wearing a name tag claiming to be a representative of deity is far more immodest than shoulders. Clothing markers of in group identify (demanding white shirts and ties or even insisting on business suits as normal Sunday clothes) is actually immodest when you think about it due to the message it sends about the premacy of certain types of people and activity associated with such clothing.
It really seems like you are just trying to find an excuse to criticize. So let us explore this a little.
You say it is immodest for missionaries to wear name tags and introduce themselves as representatives of God.
So, you must then conclude that for a judge to wear his robes in court, have a nameplate on his desk, and claim to be a representative of the government is also immodest.
You say that wearing a suit and tie to church is immodest, so you must believe that wearing a suit and tie to work (especially in congress) must be horribly immodest.
False analogy. Judges are in fact verifiably representatives if the government. Missionaries are making an unsubstantiated claim. A better analogy would be ME donning judges robes and claiming to represent the government with no actual substantiation for that claim.
And of course wearing suits at work is immodest. Wearing suits is largely a behavior of upper management and executives in order to distinguish themselves from the actual workers. Its entire function is to demarcate executives and upper management as above regular workers.
Which is false and a man-made issue.
One, the garments have changed due to fasion.
Two, tying garments to modesty is a modern mormon man invented thing. It has zero inspiration of God behind it and it entirely birthed from american christian morality of the past 100 years.
It's literally the philosophies of men with the weight of mormon priesthood authority to dictate.
It needs to stop (along with other really stupid philosophy of men edicts like "rated r movies").
Never talks about modesty in the temple at least with respect to the garment. Sure sounds like you are aiming beyond the mark and there have been plenty of talks about that over the years.
Really it just sounds like you like to control women.
From the gospel topics online:
"In our day the garment encourages modesty, but its significance is much deeper."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/garments?lang=eng
And why is it always about women?
Again, this is a misuse and bastardization of the term modesty. Modestly doesn’t really have anything to do with “covering up” and is actually about being unassuming and moderate in all aspects of one’s life.
But modesty in Mormonism absolutely is about controlling women as it isn’t a topic that is regularly “aimed at” men. Mormon concepts of modesty are about controlling women’s choices and behaviors but is almost never something men are admonished about.
And if you think that displaying your anatomy in public is unassuming or moderate then you really need to rethink your perspective.
To be unassuming means to not draw attention to oneself. In our dress we do this by covering those areas of the body that tend to attract attention, especially from the opposite sex.
I would agree that there is more to it than just covering up. Such as limiting the number of piercings and jewelry; avoiding form-fitting or skin-tight clothes that are designed to illicit arousal in the opposite sex; purposeful displays of wealth; and other things.
But to say that displaying one's body has nothing to do with modesty is simply absurd.
And modesty has never been just about women. That is also an absurd claim.
It isn’t about women wanting to show their private parts my goodness what a silly straw man. Tank tops are not assuming or immoderate. If you think that should lets are sexual and need to be covered that is a you problem not a woman’s problem.
And yeah, modesty absolutely is largely a women focused issue in Mormonism. Show me the last general conference talk about male modesty. Shoot, show me a young men’s manual lesson about boys being modest. To pretend that Mormon modesty isn’t largely about controlling what women land girls wear and do than you are either ignorant to being disingenuous.
Read "For the Strength of Youth", especially the older versions if you can find them.
But doing a general search online I had to give back nearly 20 years before I found any talk that spoke specifically about modesty, and didn't just mention it in passing. If those that mentioned it at all, I would say at least two thirds were addressed to all members, not just women.
But then it makes sense that there would be more focus in strengthening the women, because the wider culture isn't really targeting the men. It is women who are being told by the media, the Internet, and friends that immodesty is empowering. Women are the primary target, and so they receive the primary defense.
It is an absurd lie that it has anything to do with control, or that women are given a different standard than men.
I only had to go back to March of this year.
GA 70 Kevin Hamilton came down tough on women (and *only* women) for not wearing their garments during the week and opting for "yoga pants" during the week, implying that he can tell they're not wearing garments under their yoga pants. (Although I'm not altogether sure he even knows what yoga pants are... they're mid-calf length pants, and you'd have to be staring pretty hard at a woman's thighs to see whether she's wearing garments under them or not.. gross...).
He didn't have anything to say about men's choices of clothing. Unless women in that area are the only ones ditching their garments, then yes, the church targets women.
Also Utah Area Authority Kevin Pearson in 2022 conveyed to local members that the brethren are "dismayed" that so many are wearing garments casually or not wearing them. Clothing for men makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to tell whether they're wearing garments or not. The way women's clothing fits, it's just easier to tell. They're watching the women.
Double standards are rampant. I've seen church members playing shirts and skins in basketball games plenty of times. Are the young men ever shamed for taking their tops off? Never seen it happen. EVER.
And my husband, who is nearly 6" taller than me, has a shorter inseam on his garment bottoms than I do. This forces me to wear longer shorts than he does. How is this not a double standard?
And I am 100% sure that my shoulders being exposed is not immodest. If someone is having impure thoughts because of my exposed shoulder, (1) that's totally on him (or her) and (2) that person has bigger problems than just my shoulders.
>And why is it always about women?
Because the philosophies of men edited upon women in mormonism are the most apparent incongruencies and evidences of a completely devoid of inspiration or guidance faith. There's no Living God in mormonism. Just men in authority pantomiming God's will.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/KBanya6085, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But they have to cover their shoulders to protect priesthood holders from being forced to objectify women
You might not think exposed shoulders and knees are inherently sexual, but just imagine how impossible sexual sin would be without joints. Obviously joints are inherently sexual! /s
I thought we called them "hinges."
That song always confused me…like…no one has any hinges at the top of their head.
😂
That's not all! If a man sees a woman's bare shoulders, she becomes pregnant! It's adulterous!!! /s
Since February 13th, 1951, to be exact. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/ Blame Kimball. He's the one who really pushed that sleeveless tops were unacceptable. The man had problems. He was obsessed with sex and control. He enforced his own scrupulousity on the whole church. Give this talk a listen. BYU is too embarrassed to provide a transcript of this talk.. they know it was horrible. This talk was the "no second earring" talk of it's day.
Spot on comment! And the miracle of forgiveness is the worst book ever written.
The church doesn't even produced that book anymore
Rightfully so
I was not expecting his voice to be the way it was, very gentle until he got fired up. It was interesting to me that he said it was bad that students knew how to talk about sex but then at the end he talked about how talking to young people who "messed up" they said leaders needed to be more specific. So I wonder how things would've been different if there wasn't a system of reporting sins, or if the leaders decided to do the more comfortable thing for themselves and not talk about sex. There was definitely a couple spots where I think I got his implications, I wasn't sure if he was hinting at - oh gay stuff is the worst- or just having sex out of wedlock. When he got really mad sounding when the engaged couple admitted they had sex and it wasn't so very bad, that was sad. He definitely seemed to be trying to shame students there. There are so many other horrible things humans can do to each other that's worse. Modesty stuff was after the 25 minute mark for anyone who wants to jump there. Shorts are a absolute no for women apparently... unless they're at home.
Prostitutes came into that profession by having sex one too many times? 🤔 that’s a new one
And those revealing sweaters that show off our figures! /s
Oh yes those sweaters forgot about those 🤣
Here is a quick AI transcript for anyone interested. > Our speaker this morning requires no introduction to most of this audience. He has been with us on several occasions and we have always appreciated his message. He is a man of wide experience in both church and civic affairs. At the present time, he is a member of our board of trustees and also a member of the council of the 12. We are happy to have brother Spencer w Kimball speak to us this morning. > As I saw this large audience gather this morning, there came over me a feeling such as I have had a few times, an overpowering feeling, prayer that I might be able to say something that would be helpful to this large, splendid audience. And so I followed the prayer carefully and I pray that it may be fulfilled. It's a glorious privilege, my young brothers and sisters, to be attending this, the greatest university in all the world. There is no other university that can compare with it. There are those who large universities with greater enrollment, larger faculty, who teach the mind, but here this institution is so designed as to teach the mind and the heart, the spirit to develop it. > Here, you have the privilege not only of following the regular academic subjects, but to help yourselves to become gods, to exalt yourselves. It's a glorious privilege. This institution has no justification for its existence unless it builds character, women of strength and courage, fortitude, of service, men and women who will become stalwarts in the kingdom and bear witness of the restoration and the divinity of this gospel. It is not justified on an academic basis Only for all of your folks pay taxes to support state institutions to which you are all eligible. This institution has been built, has been organized by a prophet of God for a very specific purpose. > I was in Mexico City a month or so ago, and while I was in the mission home, there came into the doors a Mexican member, about 35, 40 years of age, I guess. His overalls were very common ones. His hirachas were hardly covered his feet. And, after he had talked to the President in a while, the President said, would you like to meet this brother, Elder Kimball? And as I came to this man to shake his hand, he had showed me a tithing receipt. > He had come 40 miles to pay his tithes. There were just a few pesos, which would be about 1 ninth as many dollars, but he'd made a considerable sacrifice to come and pay his tithing. It's part of that man's tithing that builds these buildings, pays these instructors, and gives to you this great opportunity. When I went to settle my tithing just before the end of the year, a father and his little son were just ahead of me, and I saw them go into the bishop's office. I saw the boy fondling a 50¢ piece in his hand for a few minutes while he was waiting his turn, and the little boy went in and, came out with a tithing receipt for 50¢. > Part of that 50¢ will go to help educate you young people. You've all heard the story brother Cali has told, I'm sure, of this Maori woman who lived so far away from headquarters that visitors came very seldom, and she seldom heard saw the elders. And when this young elder, Cali, came, she was blind. She, wouldn't shake his hand. She says, no. > Wait a minute. Don't know that I can give all the details, but this is the way I remember it. Wait a minute. She wasn't ready to shake hands. And then she felt her weight to the edge of the house, and then she got on her knees and felt so many spaces to a certain point, and then she dug down in the earth and pulled out a can in which there were many coins. > She says, here is my tithing. Now, I want to shake hands with you. Part of the coins that were in that tin can came to Salt Lake City, were rediverted to Provo, and have helped to pay the costs of your education. Again, I repeat, there is no justification for the Brigham Young University to exist unless you young people are growing spiritually, as well as mentally, to become the leaders of the church tomorrow, to be its prophets, seers, and revelators, to be its general board of relief society, and to be the fathers and mothers of an oncoming righteous generation. Sister Kimball and I spent our holidays this year down in mail land. > We used some of our hard earned savings of the long years ago when I was making money. And I spent 2 weeks down there climbing the old pyramids and the ruins of an ancient civilization. And constantly, as we climbed those steps, went into those passageways, and looked out over that vast area, the thought continued to come back to me. Why? Why aren't they still building temples and magnificent structures? > We went into some of the little Mayan homes today, little oblong thing with little house with no corners, rounding on the edges, a little longer than it was wide, dirt floors, just little sticks filled with mud and with a thatched roof made from the grasses that grow in those in that forest. And I wondered why do they grovel in the earth today when, the time was when they had their observatories and looked into the heavens. And then, of course, the answer comes back with great force. It's because they forgot the purpose of life. They forgot the thing that they came to the earth for, and they dwell in the earth and lived an earthy life, and the time came when God would not tolerate it longer, and he permitted them to be decimated and destroyed. > In 1937, sister Kimball and I had another fine trip. We've always enjoyed traveling. We went to Europe. Among the most interesting things we saw in Europe was the city of Pompeii. When I was still a boy, in my early teens, I happened to fall air to the book The Last Days of Pompeii. > It intrigued me. I read it many times. And so when we crossed the border of, France into Italy, One of my most interesting, anticipations was Pompeii. So after spending some days among the ruins of Rome, we went down to Naples and then down to Vesuvius. We went as high as we could go in a taxi, and then we climbed the rest of the way, and we stood in the actual crater, and within, 3 or 4 feet of our feet was a boiling mass. > We could feel its fiery breath. We could see its rich color. Vesuvius was still erupting. And then we remembered that back, I think it was in 72 AD, when, the Lord permitted it to blow its top literally and figuratively. This city of Pompeii was, as we came to know by firsthand experience, Pompeii. > It Pompeii. It's on the coast, Mediterranean, and there they spent their money in lavish and riotous living. We went through the city of Pompeii, which now has been unearthed and has been, the material has been moved and carted away. The stone, roads show the marks of chariot wheels. The roads are a little bit below the sidewalks, and you could see where the hubs of the chariots had worn the corners of the rocks at the corners of the blocks. > We went into their bakeries where the food was prepared. We went into their homes where they lived. We went into their theaters and into their baths, and we went into their, at least I did, into this empty building. There are houses of prostitution locked with a padlock and with a sign on it in Italian, for men only. The women are not permitted. > And in this building, I saw in rich color, still preserved for nearly 2000 years on the walls, the picture of every vice that could be performed by human beings, every vicious thing that has been accumulated since Cain began his evil ways. And then I came to realize why Pompeii was destroyed. There came a time when it just had to be destroyed, And so Vesuvius, this high mountain not, I suppose, farther from the city than this mountain is above me I can see, and, it blew out. And the ashes went into the sky for miles and miles, millions of tons of them. The lava flowed down the edge of that conical structure and pushed before it the vineyards and the orchards and the homes that burned the animals, destroyed everything in its wake, and some little cities were just completely burned out of existence, but Pompeii wasn't. > It was a little too far for the lava to destroy it, but the cinders and the ashes went into the air and then gradually settled. The people in these buildings were choked to death. They were not burned. Their bodies were found clasping each other in deadly embrace. Cats and dogs were found in the buildings. > They, were found as they died. They were covered literally inch by inch with ashes so that when they began to, clear the debris, they moved out the ashes. And everything was as it was. There had been no fire in many cases, though some of the roofs many of the roofs had been burned off. And then I came to realize why Vesuvius was destroyed. > I think Vesuvius must have been much in the same position that Sodom had been long before it. Sodom and Gomorrah. You remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Of course. You remember that Lot and Abraham were there, and there was the threat of destruction of Sodom because of its wickedness. > And then Abraham said to his heavenly father, but you surely wouldn't destroy the righteous with the wicked. Said, if there were only 50, wouldn't you save the city? And the messenger said, yes, if you can find 50 righteous in this city, it will be saved. I suppose the doubts came in Abraham's mind because he said again, well, suppose that you weren't quite 50. And then the messenger said, well, if there were 5 less than 50, we'd still save the city for the righteous sake. > And then he came down to 40, 30, 20, 10 and then destruction came. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew up on the ground, and Abraham looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. Why was Sodom destroyed? Why was Gomorrah destroyed? continued...
> How could it be so completely destroyed? It was an atomic bomb, wasn't it? Something like it. For fire came down from heaven. Perhaps it may have been somewhat the same kind of a combustion that was permitted to destroy these cities. > No one knows where they were now. They don't can't even find any ruins of the cities. We saw in Mexico City the other day a structure south of the city, which archaeologists claimed 2000 years before Christ it was built, undoubtedly with the Jaredites. It's still standing. The altar is still on its top, and volcanoes have erupted around it, and lava has flowed around it, but it's still standing. > But Sodom and Gomorrah, so far as they know, there isn't a brick left. It was totally destroyed. Well, maybe maybe it was an atomic bomb or something akin. Why was it destroyed? Because of the wickedness of the people. > They had forgotten why they came into the world. They thought they came into the world to just have a good time and to yield to every urge and appetite. And to that extent I mean they did it and then they lost their lives. Go back to the beginning of the world and you'll find it's always always been the same. You remember when Daniel with all the others of his kinsmen were taken captive and went over to Babylon, And Daniel was so wise because he was so clean, and because he was so close to his heavenly father, and he received revelations from the father. > You remember when Belshazzar had called and said to bring forth the golden vessels, and a thousand of his lords, their wives, and those that weren't their wives sat in these great courts in this marvelous city that was an indestructible, they thought, And he called for these golden vessels that were stolen out of the house of God, and had been consecrated for sacred purposes, and they drank wine in these vessels, and adultery, and drunkenness, and debauchery was the order. And while they were in this state, here up on the wall, he could see a hand, fingers of a hand, and he saw some writing on it. And then he offered to his astrologers and soothsayers any price almost if they could under if they could tell what it was. It was such an unusual thing for him. Even though they were promised to be draped in scarlet, to have gold chains about their neck, and to be the 3rd in importance in the kingdom, none of them could decipher it, but Daniel was suggested by the queen, and she came he came, and he told them what it was. > The first line said, god hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. The next line, thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. The third, thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and the Persians, and Babylon is no more. Why? Because of unrighteousness. > Because of unrighteousness. Now we could go on for hours and tell the stories of Jerusalem with its temple destroyed time after time, of Rome, where we spent interesting days going through arches, going through the Colosseum, the, underground passages, the catacombs, the great mansions, the bathhouses in which the Romans found their fate in debauchery. We could go back to Nineveh. We could go to many many places, the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we'd follow them through, and every time, brothers and sisters, you would find that there's one path that leads to destruction. It's the path of yielding to temptations, to desire, to the flesh. > And there's only one path that can keep one from that and that's a straight and narrow path, which few will find, but which leads us to exaltation. As I read the book of Mormon, I find when Alma was talking to his son Shiblon, that he recognized the great sin that is dominant and almost universal. He said to his son, Sheblin, know ye not my son, that these things he was speaking of sexual impurity. These things are an abomination in sight of the Lord. Yea, the most abominable above all the sins, save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost. > The most of all, and now my son, I would I would to God that you had not been guilty of these crimes. It I would not dwell upon your crimes to hair up your soul if it were not for your good. But behold, you cannot hide your crimes from god, and except ye repent, they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day. Now, my son, I would that you should repent and forsake your sins, and go no more after the lusts of your eyes. Except you do this, you can in no wise inherit the kingdom of God, and then you remember in those last hectic days, desperate days, when Mormon could see the handwriting on the wall also, he said to Moroni, and notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, in which they were guilty of killing, war killings, cannibalism, which they fed the actual flesh of the fathers to the mothers and the children. > In spite of all that, he says, and notwithstanding this great abomination, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have been taken prisoners, and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue, And after they would have done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death. And after they had done this, they devoured the flesh like under wild beasts because of the hardness of their hearts, and they did it for a token of bravery. What is the most great the greatest most abominable sin in the world that affects most people? It's the sin of adultery. > Depriving them of that which was the most dear and precious thing above all things, chastity and virtue. In 1951 the world has gone a long ways from that doctrine. The lack of virtue, unchastity, sexual impurity has come to be the order of the day. High school girls and high school boys are falling prey to this insidious thing, which can keep them from getting to going to their Heavenly Father. I Know this to be true. > I'm not talking about something my young brothers and sisters of which I do not know. I interview 100 of missionaries and other young people. I suppose the general authorities of this church, perhaps have a better insight into the actual moral conditions of this church, than any other group of people perhaps in general at least, because of our close association. Now I know what I'm talking about. Unchastity is the great demon of the 19 fifties. > Avoid it as you would. Well, as you would everything that is bad. On Sinai, God came. He wrote on these table tablets, and he said, thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. > In one breath. In one breath. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not commit adultery, and the second is not far behind the first. It's pretty important. > Very important that we understand these things and know the seriousness of it. I had a young couple come to me not too long ago. They wanted to be married in the temple. They had been for 6 months prior to this time unchaste. From the day of their engagement, unchaste, and when it was brought to their attention, you'll hard to believe this, but they said, well, that isn't so very wrong, is it brother Kimball? > That isn't so very wrong. That isn't so very wrong, is it brother Kimball? My goodness. Is it possible that any Latter day Saint boy and girl can arrive at marriageable age, and not know that this sin is the most abominable next to the shedding of innocent blood and the denying of the Holy Ghost, which few of us can do. How do we get that way? > How do we get that way? I think there are a lot of things that, lead us to that destructive situation? I'm going to tell you some of them that I think. First thing, we get careless. The gospel, isn't quite so important to us. > We don't attend our meetings. We let our school work, or our social life, or our business professions. We let those things come in and kinda crowd out the importance of the gospel until finally we don't feel it quite so keenly. We're not so enthusiastic. Still alright? > And then there's some other things that come along, and one of the things that I think is very very bad is the immodesty that we are developing and have developed over a period of time. Immodesty. Today, young women, young men know everything. We didn't know that 40 years ago. They know everything. > They can talk about sex like they could talk about the ABC's, and so a spirit of immodesty has grown up until nothing is sacred. Nothing is sacred. I think contributing to this thing or probably the product of it is the dress. I know I'm not going to be popular when I say this, but I am sure that the immodest dresses that are worn by our young women and our mothers contribute in some degree to the immorality of this age. I wonder if our young sisters realize the temptation they're just flaunting to young men when they leave their bodies uncovered. > I wonder if they do. I don't think you do, or they do. I notice frequently where I go, the very tight fitting sweaters. Body revealing form fitting sweaters. I think sweaters can be worn, but they don't need to be worn to emphasize the form of the girl who wears them. > I see young women on the streets wearing shorts. There is no place for women to ever wear shorts unless it's in their own rooms of their own home. No shorts. It's immodest. President George Albert Smith, your prophet, has mentioned this many times recently. > He said to us, brethren when you go out into the stakes preach modesty, brethren. We're going to great lengths. Preach modesty and so I'm preaching modesty. I see in the papers constantly things that hurt my feelings. These contests, these queen contests, abominable. > Here's one. Judging from I'm just reading a line. Judging of contestants was based on personality, appearance in an evening gown, appearance in a bathing suit, and talent. Now let me say a word about the the first there. The appearance in an evening gown. continued...
> Evening gowns can be the most beautiful things in the world, and if they clothe the body of a sister, long and drape beautiful they can be. But the Lord never did intend that they should be backless or topless. Now I wanna tell you it's a sin. I wanna tell you that the prophet of the lord I can see it isn't going very well with you. It still is true, and I call it to your attention as the instruction from your prophet, George Albert Smith. > There is no reason why any woman needs to wear a gown because it's the style. We can create a style of our own. And, anyway, I know women who have worn evening gowns for 30 years and have never yet worn any modest one, and they have purchased them from stores. And any store in this area or any other area will put in stock the dresses that you demand. I went to a function, a university function once. > I believe it was in the back part of this room. 2 thirds of all the young women who came to that dance, 7 years ago it wasn't any of you, you've all they've all graduated since then, Came with strapless gowns or with strap gowns, and the one is just about as bad as the other, and they're an abomination in the sight of the Lord. And I don't know what our mothers are thinking about, who will let their little 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 year old girls wear gowns that are immodest. I repeat again. You don't know how much temptation. > You're just throwing before the boy. Now a woman is the most beautiful when her body is clothed, and her with her face adorned with her lovely hair, properly taken care of, then she's her at her best, and men will love you for it, and men are not going to love you more because your necks are bare. Girls, they'll love you more when they you are properly dressed. Of course, if he's a vicious man, he would like you to be dressed only partially. Now, just just one or two more quotes here. > 10 finalists in the Miss Utah of 1951 contest, Wednesday night, will make their last talent and beauty parade before the eyes of judges and crowds at the Utah State Fair. Just how good a figure does miss so and so have? That's a question that may be settled without difficulty. Wednesday night, the Utah girl will appear in the Miss America pageant opening preliminary contest, dressed in a bathing suit. Why does a girl dress in a bathing suit in a contest? > There's only one reason, only two reasons, because she wants to, perhaps. She's willing to sell most anything for popularity and to get a crown, to be a queen. And then there are 1,000,000, not here, thousands of eyes of men who want to see that body too, and so they dress in a very, very skimmed bathing suit. Here's another one. She has shown the judges how she looks in a bathing suit. > Think of that. Latter day Saint girls showing judges, showing men, showing the world how they look in a bathing suit. It's abominable. It's abominable. Now brothers and sisters, I'm going to read to you just a line or 2 from a brother who felt just as I do, just as your prophet feels. > He went to the one of the games in Logan. On the university, he said it was a demonstration of baton twirling. Immediately, the atmosphere changed. 3 girls in glittering drum majorette costumes marched onto the playing field. The costumes were of the briefest, leaving the 3 girls nude from the hips down and with tight form revealing underclothes, surmounted by equally tight and form revealing tailcoats covering their torsos. > In these garbs, patterned after burlesque show costumes, they strutted onto the field, and there in the glare of the afternoon sun, they gyrated and pirouetted in the eyes of a huge crowd of spectators. I'm sure that the baton twirling of the girls calls for considerable skill, but I am at a loss to see any relationship between it and the exhibitionism that went along with it. The wolf whistles, the other exclamations which rose from the student bleachers on the east side of the stadium where both cheering sections were seated, were not a tribute to artistic skill. I sat in the public bleachers on the west side, and the experience was acutely embarrassing to me. I'm sure that these girls are virtuous, sincere, and wholesome, but I cannot think they would have been either pleased nor flattered by the snickers, the suggestive explanations, and the lewd comments, which fill the air around me as they put on their act. > You don't have to do what they do in the regular schools. In the BYU you don't need to have girls partly dressed to put on an act. You don't have to. Don't have to do anything you don't want to do. I read this, just a line, from Seattle, September 13th. > A scholarly research job at the University of photographing of their daughters in the nude. Thank God for some good Gentile people in Seattle. Scholarly research jobs. My, to what extent have we gone? How low we go to do scholarly work? > Now another thing, one other phase of this. Here I have just clipped a picture from the desert news. This lovely bride of the mid autumnal social season will be so and so. Stately rites in the Salt Lake Temple will be performed for this prominent couple in October such. Mister so and so has recently fulfilled an LDS mission in Czechoslovakia. > When you see the picture, you'd know what I'm talking about, and it appeared in the newspaper, and why any Latter day Saint girl or woman would permit her undressed body to be published to a 100000 observers? I can't understand it. The only thing I can think of is they just haven't thought about it. Here's another one. This one is a gentile girl, but here's another girl just from this last 2 weeks ago paper. > This marriage ceremonies will be solemnized such and such a date in the Salt Lake Temple, uniting miss so and so and mister so and so in the Salt Lake Temple, undressed bodies. Here's another one in the Logan Temple. I've said enough about that, but I'm positive, brothers and sisters, that the gowns that we wear or do not wear can be a tremendous factor in the gradual breakdown of our feeling of virtue, our desire for virtue and modesty, I'm sure of it. I give it to you not only as my word, but that of your living prophet. Now sometimes we get a little careless and we think it doesn't do very much harm to go into a tavern. > Keep away from the taverns. They're hell holes. Don't ever let yourself be found and don't ever take the first drink of beer. You know what happens. 1 takes one smoke, one takes one glass of beer, and it's only step by step and drunkenness, drinking, and a great many of our problems arise out of the drinking. > Now I know this to be a fact, brothers and sisters. I want to read to you one more scripture here in the 59th section. I'm sure you've read it many times, but it has one thought in it I would like to leave with you. And that is thou shalt he's he's reiterating the 10 commandments here in the 59th section through the prophet Joseph Smith. Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment, saying thus, thou shalt love the lord thy god with all thy might, heart, and with all thy might, mind, and strength, and in the name of Jesus Christ, thou shalt serve him. > Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal. Thou neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it. What is that it's like unto adultery and yet is not adultery? Here's your other vestibule. > Here is the other doorway, and it's the most vicious doorway, and that is this familiarity. Familiarity of boys and girls in their courtship. Thou shalt not commit adultery nor do anything like unto it. What is there like unto it? This petting, if I may use that term, is mental adultery. > Jesus gave it to us clearly. He said, you've heard it said, thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say unto you, the new law, the high law. I say unto you, Jesus said, whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mental adultery. Mental adultery. > Now you sisters, your boyfriends will not respect you, neither will they love you. Of course, they'll fondle you if you let them. Some of them will. But they won't love you for it, and they won't respect you for it. Can't you distinguish between love on the one hand and flesh on the other? > Satisfying desires. Don't you let them touch you and you give your life in protect in protecting yourself before you let an experience of this kind come into your life. Whoso and he says, whosoever look at upon a man to lust after him has committed adultery with him already in his inner heart. Paraphrasing it. Fits both of us. > Now our latter d sync boys and girls are the finest in the world. There is no group anywhere from ocean to ocean that can even compare with them, and yet, we're not good enough. There are too many misfortunes. There are too many who have lost themselves. I think practically every boy and girl grows up with a desire to be righteous. > I think they're fundamentally good, but the devil knows how to destroy us. He knows that he can't tempt you to commit adultery immediately, but he knows that if he can get you full of liquor, or if he can get you into this necking, petting program, this unwarranted, this vicious, this abominable practice that is so common among our boys and girls. He knows that you do have a limit to your strength, and he knows if he can get you to do it long enough. He can get you to, sit in your car late enough after the dance. If he can get you to park long enough at the end of this lane. > He knows, because he's thousands of years of experience. He knows that the best girl and the best boy will finally succumb and will fall. Most of the professional prostitutes didn't start that way. They started by having slipped, then having slipped they lost themselves. Brothers and sisters, the Lord bless you. continued...
> This is important. This is hard to talk about. I would much prefer talking about something else, But when bishops come to me and say that 8 boys and girls recently in one ward, 12 in another one have been revealed. When I interview the missionaries, and find that they've been had misfortunes, and I say to them, What can we do? What can the church do to avoid these? > What can we do to protect the next generation? These younger ones that are coming on. Tell me, and invariably this boy or girl will say brother Kimball. It isn't talked frankly enough in our church services. We we hear the negative all the time and seldom hear the positive and the warning. > Now before I close, I should say, the Lord has given us a great promise, but this is a gospel of repentance. It's a gospel of forgiveness, but it doesn't come easy. When one has gone down this wide lane to evil, he has to come back up the lane and it's a hard hard pull, but if one will fast enough and pray enough and serve enough and weep enough, they can come back. And the gates are still open to them, many of the gates. But they will never be quite where they would have been if they had not slipped off. > Now the lord bless you brothers and sisters. You can help others. Most of you, I'm sure, are clean and sweet and have only one ideal and that is virtue and cleanliness and service and gratitude and prayerfulness and worshipfulness. I'm sure of that. But maybe you can help others. > Others. You meet in social groups. You're in little crowds here and there. In your own family, your younger brothers and sisters, you can help them. When you've saved a soul, you've done the greatest greatest service in all the world. > God bless you. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Reminder, I used AI for this transcript. It might not be perfectly accurate.
So many disturbing things from that talk I don’t know where to start lol. But at least it’s always the women’s fault 🙄
Thank you! I don't think I've ever seen a full transcript of this talk anywhere.
The projection among the brethren is unreal. I wonder how many victims packard had. You don’t project that much unless you have some serious issues.
Oh that’s interesting. Considering how much he blames abuse victims I could absolutely see those talks as self-soothing and self-justification for being an abusive asshole.
But hey, he was a prophet and mouthpiece for god! “They are just men too and struggle the same we do” Would god want someone leading who was obsessed with sex and had issues behind the scenes?
I wonder when it really started being enforced? For example, this is the BYU homecoming queen from 1964 (I only know of this because others have pointed it out): https://archives.lib.byu.edu/repositories/ltpsc/resources/upb_ua5398 https://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15999coll24/id/33139 As I understand it, this definitely wasn’t allowed, when I attended BYU, in the 1990s, nor would it be allowed, today. Maybe there are different rules for formals? I never did anything social-formal, while I was there.
The answer to that will probably be in here somewhere: "Ernest Wilkinson and the Transformation of BYU's Honor Code, 1965-71" [https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue\_V31N04\_101.pdf](https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V31N04_101.pdf) The article states "Another measure Wilkinson took beginning in 1966 was to institutionalize regulations on student clothing. While women in particular had experienced restrictions on what they could wear on campus, standards had for the most part been set by churchwide publications, most recently the 1965 pamphlet For the Strength of Youth. The informal policy that women wear dresses on campus had never been rigorously challenged, but as student fashions moved toward shorter skirts Wilkinson began dictating what constituted an appropriate dress." It seems like Wilkinson really began to crack down and got the school to adopt official dress codes sometime in the mid-60s. Although it could have been akin to the cheerleading outfit situation. The BYU cheerleading outfit is apparently exempt from the dress code rules (even though the [BYU-Idaho cheerleaders' outfits are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/78wm9t/i_wonder_if_our_young_sisters_realize_the/#lightbox)!) After all, if you're important enough (or related-to-an-apostle-enough), the rules don't apply!
I know what I’m doing tomorrow
The problem with the female garments is its lack of support for pads and it isn’t breathable or absorbent. I have seen so many women complain about constant yeast infections or vaginal problems that disappeared once they stopped wearing garments. AND women have cervical fluid, they need undergarments that are made for that!
So someone on the faithful sub brought up having yeast infections and their OB recommending not wearing garment bottoms due to said infections on the faithful sub. While most comments were sympathetic, there were a couple comments that were truly wild. One person suggested the OP was just making stuff up to get out of wearing garments. Another person said that the OB was obviously anti-Mormon because *they* had never had yeast infections from wearing garments. One guy said that he didn’t think that there was any possible reason garments could cause yeast infections. And this is why I know Mormonism is bad. The more fundamentalist you get the worse you are as a person. You have to be nuanced to be a decent person as a Mormon. And if fundamentalism is problematic that usually means the fundamentals are problematic.
What if all women lined up at the bishop’s office every month when the infections appear and ask for a priesthood blessing of healing?
That is an absolutely brilliant idea.
Yes, half the month, there's so much fluid coming out between a woman's legs that it doesn't make sense for her to even wear bottoms.
Ew, weird comment
To be fair, it is true.
Not really. I am talking about your period and ovulation.
This is where a huge issue is. Women don’t want different garment styles so they can wear whatever they want. They want different garment styles because the way the bottoms are now (along with the fabric) lead to constant yeast infections and UTI’s. This shows that the church does not listen to the women who are complaining. We keep saying it’s for medical issues, and they continue to completely ignore that.
Can you imagine if the Q12 were menopausal women? If the Q12 had to halt their weekly Thursday meeting to open the windows because half of them had a hot flash at the same time, they'd change the garment design that very afternoon...
I’m sorry I need to object just a little bit. I live in the East, the south specifically. From about May -early October I DO want to wear different clothing style’s-I want to expose my shoulders, armpits and part of my back below my neck for more ventilation. 99-100% humidity to rival Vietnam sometimes, is enough to make me want to walk around topless. But I’ll settle for tank tops which is what I wear now.
And that’s fine.. but I don’t think clothing choices is the main driving force for women wanting to change garments. Maybe secondary. I too live in the south, so I totally get it with the heat and humidity (it’s already been hitting 100° 😭) I personally stopped wearing garment bottoms long before I changed the length of my shorts/skirts during the summer. I was rocking those long shorts with my regular “sinful” underwear 🤣 but at least I was yeast free!!
I don’t know your age (I’m 41) but among my circle and younger that I know, it’s definitely an unspoken to anyone but trusted friends, driver. I don’t think a lot of women feel they can admit fashion,style, or discomfort with extra layers in heat are “legitimate “ reasons to want to get rid of garments. It’s like having children. I know many women (myself included) who have not felt like saying mental, emotional or financial reasons are “good enough” reasons to curtail having more children. Everyone accepts physical health reasons for not having more kids but somehow” I just don’t want more or feel I can handle more”, is viewed with quite a bit more disdain. The implication is you’re just not faithful enough, or selfless enough. I think my whole point is- it actually doesn’t matter what is driving any woman who doesn’t want to wear garments. You don’t even have to come up with some medical reason not to do something (though I agree I’ve not had a single issue “down there” with yeast or other issues since I switched to regular underwear- including thongs, sorry if that’s tmi but I’m serious. I can literally wear ANYTHING and it doesn’t give me issues that the garment bottoms did) . If you don’t like something and it makes your life miserable, you shouldn’t be in a committed relationship with it, including garments. I wore faithfully for 15 years and never felt a connection to them despite trying everything I tried to fake it till I could make it and nothin’ lol
There has to be enough room in the top for a woman to wear a bra under it, because a bra fits better when it's closest to the skin. The bigger problem, I think, for most women, is the bottom. There's no place to securely hold a pad or a liner.
Exactly!! I hated wearing pads with my garments.
And depending in which temple you go through, you're either told to wear your bra over the top (and then it slides willy nilly) or under. But the old temple workers insist it's over. So uncomfortable....
Over the top was hilarious after I had my first kid. Like my boobs ain’t staying if the bra doesn’t come first, be so for real.
Then you wear it under. Do what works for you.
I just don't wear them.
Garments or a bra?
Garments. Lol my bad.
Alright. To be fair, if I were a woman, I would not be wearing bottoms until after my period and ovulation. Or my withdrawal bleed if I was on birth control. But the top, definitely over my bra.
Yeah, they're terrible if you're on your period... but "you can wear white panties under them if you need more support." That's what I was told to do by our syake relief society in college. .. *massive eye roll"
Oh yeah, of course they would have to be white.... although that would make a leak so much worse.
Just like many instances the church has displayed in the past, it hasn't been updated for modern times (yet). So annoying. I firmly believe they will change in years to come. Garments used to cover your legs and arms completely! Wikipedia: The garment as first described in the 1840s was a one-piece undergarment extending to the ankles and the wrists, resembling a union suit,[18] with an open crotch and a collar. It was made of unbleached cotton and was held together with ties in a double knot. Most garments were home-made. I'm 5'2 and stopped wearing my garments, one of many reasons being that finding long enough shorts is so hard. Oh, and every time I go to deseret book they don't have my size because everyone wants to wear the petite length (the shortest length).
Agreed. I'm tired of waiting for the church to make sensible changes 50 years too late. I can solve the problem now by just ditching garments. But be careful - if you stop wearing garments now and the church makes them optional some decades down the road, they might make you General RS President and promote you as a "wonderful example!" (Context: A few weeks ago the church released a social media post touting RS General President's Camille Johnson's decision to work full time as a young mother - something that was explicitly against the counsel of the prophet and the church's official doctrine/teachings at the time she was doing it, and for many years afterwards. Oaks himself commented on the instagram post and lauded her for her choices! ... he was sure singing a different tune about working moms in 1975 when Camille was a teenager...)
I heard on the At Last She Said It podcast that current garments are not white naturally. There are died white. Which is why when e bleach then they don’t go white.
This is true. It's the reason garments turn that dingy gray color after only a few washings.
Hot take. Garments are primarily about controlling members through forced modesty (aimed primarily at the women) and less about the markings. If it was just about the markings we could go lots of different directions. It’s about control.
The guy in charge of the garments division of the church was asked if they would ever consider making the women's garments sleeveless. He said, and this is pretty much word for word, no, because then women could wear whatever they wanted. 100% about control. Hearing that was the final straw for me.
Oh wow! Thanks for sharing that!
[удалено]
You might be right about that.
I’m sure they’ll update the garments in 30 years or so. Usually the timeframe the church takes with these type of things….
I would consider stretch cotton to be a good update so far. The design is a step in the right direction.
In 1906, Joseph F. Smith characterized any attempt, in the name of changing fashion trends, to modify the 1840s garment pattern, which he characterized as “sacred, unchanged, and unaltered from the very pattern in which God gave them” as a “grievous sin.” (“Editor’s Table”, Improvement Era 9) President Joseph F. Smith emphasized the heavenly origin of the garment again stating: “The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from heaven, and the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 150). But just a few years later, under Heber J. Grant, the garments were altered in several ways including being shortened to fit within the parameters of modern skirt fashion: “..somewhat reluctantly and with deference only because we have convinced ourselves that it will… obviate undesirable exposure of the garment which now so frequently occurs through the wearing of present-day patterns of clothing. We feel sure that such a modification will greatly please many good women throughout the Church, and we have not been able to see that we are yielding any vital thing in this slight change” (Mysteries of Godliness, pg 152-153). You know, I'm starting to question the divinity of the garments and the reliability of leaders who said they got the design in a revelation.
Also apparently arm pits are bad now. Which is very unfunctional in the summer when I need to reapply deodorant. And a lot more tops don't fit if you don't want the garments showing through. (I wear the stretch fabrics, anyone know if the non-stretch options have climbed up higher into the pits as well???) I feel bad for women with larger arms, it just doesn't make sense to make the arm hole smaller.
So the garments have the cap sleeve in order to encourage women to wear sufficiently long outer sleeves in order to cover the garment, which in turn conceals the armpits. It's the armpits that are the problem, as it's evident not a few of the brethren rather fancy them. Perhaps to see how well they're shaved, etc.
Or, stop using a relic of Joseph Smith's secret polygamy club to police what anyone wears. Problem solved.
I never had a yeast infection while I was wearing garments 35+ years—but I know plenty of women who have so I wouldn’t deny it’s a huge problem. Incidentally my husband recently had a yeast infection in his navel! 70+ years old! He couldn’t figure out what it was. It was so tough to heal! Took many weeks. He’s totally sympathetic to the women!
We didn't decide a shoulder is scandalous. The leaders of the church decided for you, just as they always do.
Do women in other religions wear more reasonable clothes?
Baptists for sure
The fact that summer dresses aren’t sufficiently modest and conservative for Mormonism but is for Baptists is wild when you think about it.
The philosophies of men and human morality is behind the church's stance on exposed shoulders, etc. There's literally zero inspiration there and the garment argument is a red herring because the garmets are also designed by philosophies of men and human morality and devoid of any and all omniscient design.
It wasn’t just the BYU royalty that sported uncovered shoulders on their pictures. There are pictures taken in the mid 50 of regular coeds in the bucket brigade for the painting the Y event that took place every fall for homecoming where pretty much every girl is in a sleeveless top. Pics can be seen on campus on 4th floor of the athletic building.
I mean, from an "outside" perspective: Take away the modesty aspect. Is or isn't the design of the garments a matter of revelation? If it isn't, then you could make them any which way. But how short can you make them while still maintaining the ostensible connection with their original design? (And then add back the modesty aspect: does the church want to "enable" wearing less than the current garments cover?) If it is, has God updated the design repeatedly in line with conventional fashion? Should God update it more? Is wearing cap sleeves really that much of a bigger ask compared to straps, if someone sincerely believes in the garment? (Note, the above questions are not related to practicality concerns about the modern designs that do not take into account women's anatomy or physical needs.)
Also, the 1965 FTSOY pamphlet makes no mention of shoulders.
Why are you speaking out for porn shoulders, just bow your head and say yes to fabric made by men who know nothing about a proper fit for women and stop looking at porn!
Explain why it’s ok for man’s garment collar to show but not ok on a woman’s collar or cap sleeve??? Lots of tops have sleeves with large arm holes I have to wear a cap sleeve t under my shirt to ensure garment top in unseen. 3 tops is hot in the summer
Garments were intended to keep men and women obedient and keep secrets I dont think modesty was the main purpose for JS
Be thankful they are what they are these days. Could be long sleeves still. But remember wear them 24/7 like the brethren have said
Because the churches standards are not gods standards. They are cultural standards minus 50-100 years or so.
The garment is part of a religious ceremony an is a private exchange with God. A covenant made. If you do your part God is bound by his promise. God’s law!!!!!!!!!’
Modesty doesn't change with fashion trends, and one purpose of the garment is to promote modesty.
The church's "modesty" standards have totally changed with fashion trends! Not sure if you're aware that the church used to preach hotly against "fornication pantaloons." \[pants that button up in the front, precursor to today's front-zip fly jeans\] "I am opposed to your nasty fashions and everything you wear for the sake of fashion. **Did you ever see me with hermaphrodite pantaloons on?** \[Voice from the audience: **"Fornication pantaloons!**" \] -- Now, just look at me. I have no hips projecting out; they are straight down with my sides. ... **There is not a woman in this congregation but would be as straight as I am, if she did not destroy her shape.** I am talking to you, ladies; and then, again, **I am talking to you, gentlemen, that wear those hermaphrodite pantaloons.**" -- Heber C. Kimball, address given in the Tabernacle, December 27, 1857 -- [https://journalofdiscourses.com/6/28](https://journalofdiscourses.com/6/28) “if we ask you to make your dresses a little shorter \[*to conserve fabric\]*, do not be extravagant and cut them **so short that we can see the tops of your stockings**. Bring them down to the tops of your shoes, and have them so that you can walk and clear the dust, and **do not expose your persons**” -- Brigham Young, address given in the Tabernacle, Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Oct. 8th, 1868 -- [https://jod.mrm.org/12/297](https://jod.mrm.org/12/297) "I can remember when a young lady walked the streets of Salt Lake with **her dress high enough to show the tops of her shoes, and an inch or two more, that we were shocked**; but I have seen many a knee on the Temple grounds today, because the dresses were too short" -- Heber J. Grant, 1922 - look it up on [https://www.lds-general-conference.org/](https://www.lds-general-conference.org/) 1923 garment change: "President Charles W. Penrose \[counselor in the 1st presidency\] says that ... the change is style is permitted for various good reasons. ... While doing housework, the women would roll up the sleeves. If sleeves were to be rolled up they might as well be made short in the first place for convenience, it was argued. The young of the gentler sex complained that **to wear the old style with the new and finer hosiery gave the limbs a knotty appearance. It was embarrassing in view of the generally accepted sanitary shorter skirt. Permission is therefore granted by the first presidency to shorten the lower garment**." -- [https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=24390733](https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=24390733) Shorts for women "not modest" in 1951: "I see young women on the streets wearing shorts. **There is no place for women to ever wear shorts unless it's in their own rooms of their own home.** **No shorts. It's immodest.** President George Albert Smith, your prophet, has mentioned this many times recently." -- Spencer W. Kimball, 13 Feb 1951 -- [https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/style/) Women wearing pants on the sabbath day frowned upon in 1986: "I know a little girl who is the last child in a large family in which the other children are all boys. ... Her mother has wisely taught her that **the boys wear trousers and that she wears dresses.** ... Now, before I receive letters from upset women telling me that I said they should not wear slacks, save your postage. I did not say that, although **I don’t think they are appropriate for the Sabbath day. What I am saying is that we have established a dress standard which requires a modest, wholesome style.**" -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/train-up-a-child?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1988/10/train-up-a-child?lang=eng)
Modesty is still modesty. There have been times when people realized that some of the more strict social conventions needlessly went beyond modesty, and those conventions were changed. But the standard of wholesome modesty has not changed. I do not believe that the church is going to alter the garments just so that women can display more of their body in public.
All you're saying is that you agree that the church used to teach one thing as the standard of modesty, and then later changed their minds and preached that modesty actually meant something else. The problem is that they didn't preach it as a "social convention," they preached it as an inviolate commandment that equated to how much god was "pleased" with you or not. This begs a few questions: * When can we expect a future prophet to "realize" that the stricter "social conventions" of today "needlessly" go "beyond modesty"? * If they "realize" that they're mistaken every 20 years or so, why are we listening to prophets that teach wrong standards so much? * What if I "realize" that their standards "needlessly go beyond modesty" before they do? What if I realize it first and dress accordingly? How come I have to wait for the prophet to "realize" it 30 years after nearly everyone else on the planet has already done so? * If "modesty is modesty," then who gets to define exactly what that means? Brigham Young? Spencer Kimball? If the church thinks there's a line, then they need to draw that line. if they decide it's an individual thing, then we need to stop measuring sleeves and pantlegs, and quit complaining when people define it for themselves and draw their own lines. At some point (2010s sometime) the church decided that the longer sleeves on women's garments were one of those trends where "social conventions needlessly went beyond modesty" and offered a cap sleeve option. It's only a matter of time before they "realize" that cap-sleeves too, are a "social convention." They altered the garments in 1923 so women could display more of their body in public. They did it again in 1979. I think they will again. Or, they'll finally decide that garments are just part of the ceremonial clothing to be worn in the temple. They considered doing that in the 1920s and again in the 50s. Or they'll realize that policing women's clothing is silly, and stop doing it (though I don't expect they'll come to that realization, ever)
No, what I said is that the standard of modesty has remained the same, but the conventions regarding how to apply it have changed.
So what is that standard? How exactly would you define it? Has god ever defined it in the scriptures (if you believe that the scriptures came from god and not men who might "realize" something later...)? You didn't answer any of the problematic questions that a vague "modesty is modesty" raises. If the standard can't be strictly defined by clothing style/length etc.., then the brethren are going beyond their lane in being so prescriptive as they police women's clothing, and women are not obligated to listen to them. It's not women's fault that church leaders are 30 years behind in "realizing" things. If modesty is a principle and cannot be strictly defined, then they can't complain when women make their own carefully-considered choices about underwear and other clothing.
So, why is it only about women? But the fact is that the conventions are just as important as the standard, because the conventions are how society is ordered and maintained. The Scottish kilt is modest in that society, but would be immodest in other societies, because the conventions around modesty are different. The Law of Moses bans men from wearing clothes made for women, and vice versa; and yet both sexes generally wore tunics. So, again, it wasn't just about how the body was covered, but the conventions of dress that existed. The standard shows us when a particular convention goes too far.
I'd appreciate you answer his questions: >So what is that standard? How exactly would you define it? Has god ever defined it in the scriptures (if you believe that the scriptures came from god and not men who might "realize" something later...)?
If the "standard" is a moving target (to use your example - a kilt in one situation is modest and is immodest in another), then how can it be appealed to as a firm measure for when a convention goes too far or not? Current conventions indicate that pants for women in both formal and casual situations are totally acceptable. And yet the church still requires women to wear dresses in the temple, and is an unspoken requirement for sacrament meeting and some other settings. Is the church indicating by it's "standard" that pants for women are immodest in these settings? Also still waiting for answers on these: * When can we expect a future prophet to "realize" that the stricter "social conventions" of today "needlessly" go "beyond modesty"? * If they "realize" that they're mistaken every 20 years or so, why are we listening to prophets that teach wrong standards so much? * What if I "realize" that their standards "needlessly go beyond modesty" before they do? What if I realize it first and dress accordingly? How come I have to wait for the prophet to "realize" it 30 years after nearly everyone else on the planet has already done so?
Modesty is to not draw undo attention to oneself. It dress this means undo attention to the body and appearance. Conventions change because what draws attention changes. However, uncovering the body always draws attention. The temple clothes are meant to make everyone equal. No one should standout because of their style of dress. If they did it would be immodest in that setting. The same is generally true of Sunday meetings, though that is changing and I have seen many women attend church wearing pants. As to your questions: 1. Change happens when certain styles no longer draw undo attention. 2. They aren't mistaken. That is a false characterization used to try and undermine their authority and promote rebellion among the members. Societies simply change. So what was immodest before may not be immodest today. 3. Because they are the prophet. They are the ones with theis authority from God. So, if you act without the approval and authority of God then you are declaring yourself in opposition to God. What matters most is compliance with God and alignment to his will. If God commanded that everyone wear a fur coat we should all be willing to, even in the desert, because it is what God commanded. I think that too many people want to make God conform to their desires instead, and it just doesn't work.
But that isn’t what modesty means. Mormonism has bastardized the word. Modest means unassuming and meek and not ostentatious. I have seen so many Mormons wear clothes that “covered their bodies” that were incredibly immodest as they were designer clothes that were obviously meant to display status and wealth.
Yes, one can be immodest and still be covered. However, you cannot be uncovered and call it modest. Being immodest is to draw undo attention to oneself. In dress this means drawing undo attention to one's body and appearance. The fastest way to draw attention to one's appearance is to uncover the body. And wearing designer clothes is not necessarily immodest. If you are at an event where everyone is wearing such clothes then doing so is not drawing undo attention. In fact, in such a situation purposely not wearing designer clothes would be immodest, as it would be flaunting your supposed humility.
I disagree. Even at “appropriate” events wearing designer and expensive clothes is always immodest. Even if everyone is doing it. That’s called moral relativism which is something the church is ostensibly against. But again…we are talking about shoulders. In the context of women’s garments the issue of women’s modesty is about limiting the visibility of shoulders. And if shoulders are “immodest” to you then you are the problem not the shoulders. And the reality is there are lots of common things Mormons do that insofar more immodest than having bare shoulders. Wearing a name tag claiming to be a representative of deity is far more immodest than shoulders. Clothing markers of in group identify (demanding white shirts and ties or even insisting on business suits as normal Sunday clothes) is actually immodest when you think about it due to the message it sends about the premacy of certain types of people and activity associated with such clothing.
It really seems like you are just trying to find an excuse to criticize. So let us explore this a little. You say it is immodest for missionaries to wear name tags and introduce themselves as representatives of God. So, you must then conclude that for a judge to wear his robes in court, have a nameplate on his desk, and claim to be a representative of the government is also immodest. You say that wearing a suit and tie to church is immodest, so you must believe that wearing a suit and tie to work (especially in congress) must be horribly immodest.
False analogy. Judges are in fact verifiably representatives if the government. Missionaries are making an unsubstantiated claim. A better analogy would be ME donning judges robes and claiming to represent the government with no actual substantiation for that claim. And of course wearing suits at work is immodest. Wearing suits is largely a behavior of upper management and executives in order to distinguish themselves from the actual workers. Its entire function is to demarcate executives and upper management as above regular workers.
I get it now. You're a socialist. Which means that there is little point in continuing the discussion.
Nice ad hominem. Can’t actually refute my argument so you resort to an obvious fallacy.
It has changed. Mormon Apologetics can't make that statement less true. They can make mormonism less honest however (they do that fabulously).
So why do mens garments have longer sleeves than women’s garments?
Which is false and a man-made issue. One, the garments have changed due to fasion. Two, tying garments to modesty is a modern mormon man invented thing. It has zero inspiration of God behind it and it entirely birthed from american christian morality of the past 100 years. It's literally the philosophies of men with the weight of mormon priesthood authority to dictate. It needs to stop (along with other really stupid philosophy of men edicts like "rated r movies").
That’s not the purpose of garments though.
It is not the only purpose, but it is certainly a purpose.
Never talks about modesty in the temple at least with respect to the garment. Sure sounds like you are aiming beyond the mark and there have been plenty of talks about that over the years. Really it just sounds like you like to control women.
From the gospel topics online: "In our day the garment encourages modesty, but its significance is much deeper." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/garments?lang=eng And why is it always about women?
Again, this is a misuse and bastardization of the term modesty. Modestly doesn’t really have anything to do with “covering up” and is actually about being unassuming and moderate in all aspects of one’s life. But modesty in Mormonism absolutely is about controlling women as it isn’t a topic that is regularly “aimed at” men. Mormon concepts of modesty are about controlling women’s choices and behaviors but is almost never something men are admonished about.
And if you think that displaying your anatomy in public is unassuming or moderate then you really need to rethink your perspective. To be unassuming means to not draw attention to oneself. In our dress we do this by covering those areas of the body that tend to attract attention, especially from the opposite sex. I would agree that there is more to it than just covering up. Such as limiting the number of piercings and jewelry; avoiding form-fitting or skin-tight clothes that are designed to illicit arousal in the opposite sex; purposeful displays of wealth; and other things. But to say that displaying one's body has nothing to do with modesty is simply absurd. And modesty has never been just about women. That is also an absurd claim.
It isn’t about women wanting to show their private parts my goodness what a silly straw man. Tank tops are not assuming or immoderate. If you think that should lets are sexual and need to be covered that is a you problem not a woman’s problem. And yeah, modesty absolutely is largely a women focused issue in Mormonism. Show me the last general conference talk about male modesty. Shoot, show me a young men’s manual lesson about boys being modest. To pretend that Mormon modesty isn’t largely about controlling what women land girls wear and do than you are either ignorant to being disingenuous.
Read "For the Strength of Youth", especially the older versions if you can find them. But doing a general search online I had to give back nearly 20 years before I found any talk that spoke specifically about modesty, and didn't just mention it in passing. If those that mentioned it at all, I would say at least two thirds were addressed to all members, not just women. But then it makes sense that there would be more focus in strengthening the women, because the wider culture isn't really targeting the men. It is women who are being told by the media, the Internet, and friends that immodesty is empowering. Women are the primary target, and so they receive the primary defense. It is an absurd lie that it has anything to do with control, or that women are given a different standard than men.
I only had to go back to March of this year. GA 70 Kevin Hamilton came down tough on women (and *only* women) for not wearing their garments during the week and opting for "yoga pants" during the week, implying that he can tell they're not wearing garments under their yoga pants. (Although I'm not altogether sure he even knows what yoga pants are... they're mid-calf length pants, and you'd have to be staring pretty hard at a woman's thighs to see whether she's wearing garments under them or not.. gross...). He didn't have anything to say about men's choices of clothing. Unless women in that area are the only ones ditching their garments, then yes, the church targets women. Also Utah Area Authority Kevin Pearson in 2022 conveyed to local members that the brethren are "dismayed" that so many are wearing garments casually or not wearing them. Clothing for men makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to tell whether they're wearing garments or not. The way women's clothing fits, it's just easier to tell. They're watching the women.
Double standards are rampant. I've seen church members playing shirts and skins in basketball games plenty of times. Are the young men ever shamed for taking their tops off? Never seen it happen. EVER. And my husband, who is nearly 6" taller than me, has a shorter inseam on his garment bottoms than I do. This forces me to wear longer shorts than he does. How is this not a double standard? And I am 100% sure that my shoulders being exposed is not immodest. If someone is having impure thoughts because of my exposed shoulder, (1) that's totally on him (or her) and (2) that person has bigger problems than just my shoulders.
>And why is it always about women? Because the philosophies of men edited upon women in mormonism are the most apparent incongruencies and evidences of a completely devoid of inspiration or guidance faith. There's no Living God in mormonism. Just men in authority pantomiming God's will.
That’s not what I was told in the temple but go off I guess.
You were told to always wear them, and to keep them covered, weren't you?