Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Rethinking Modesty

Putting a spotlight on what should be required LDS reading:

Perverting Modesty

(By Tracy M--


Papa D said...

Yeah, I'm sure I'll be linking to this one on my own blog at some point.

R. Gary said...

Okay. Here's my take on Tracy's article "Perverting Modesty."

The Lord’s standard of modesty: From the beginning of mortality, the Lord has asked His children to cover their bodies. After partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became aware that they were naked and tried to cover themselves with aprons made of fig leaves. The aprons did not satisfy the Lord’s standard of modesty, but coats of skins did.

Today's temple garment (worn in place of the coat of skins) still defines the Lord's standard of modesty by covering nakedness that should not be exposed in public.

In our day, there is an ever widening chasm between the Lord's standards and the standards of society. Immodesty is accepted in today's world. As one of our leaders warned, "Evil has unclothed herself and walks the streets in brazen, impudent defiance."

The Church's idea and definition of modesty is six thousand years old. It was not invented by man, it was given to man by God from the beginning.

The Church's idea and definition of modesty is NOT, as Tracy claims, broken.

It is NOT, as Tracy claims, wrong.

Clean Cut said...

R. Gary, you can't possibly tell me with a straight face that "the Church's idea and definition of modesty is six thousand years old."

Don't you think things have changed just a bit?

Joseph F. Smith spoke of a very different idea of modesty than our own when he said:

“Each individual should be provided with the endowment clothing they need. The garments must be clean and white, and of the approved pattern; they must not be altered or mutilated, and are to be worn as intended, down to the wrist and ankles, and around the neck. These requirements are imperative; admission to the Temple will be refused to those who do not comply therewith.”

Even still, Tracy's post speaks to a much deeper meaning of modesty than the current focus on the superficial that's so prevalent. I have no issues with a "principle" of modesty--just with some of the superficial applications of the principle which I think go beyond the mark.

PS: Has anyone ever told you that you probably would have made a great Puritan?

R. Gary said...

God can and does change the implementation of his commandments. Modesty is one example, as you've so well illustrated. Another example is the sacrament: Today we use water instead of wine. Modesty and the sacrament both came from God. Through his authorized servants, God has made changes to both. But the Church's current teaching and practice in both cases can be traced back to the day God gave the commandment, and for modesty that was six thousand years ago.

No extra charge for the straight face and the Puritan's probably won't have me until I stop drinking Pepsi.