My sister in law, Liz, called me the other day to tell me she was going to post something on her blog, but she felt a little vulnerable about it. The funny thing is I read it and was like, "What would anyone object to? Laying off each other? Being less judgmental? Being more loving? What could anyone complain about?" And yet, I know her fear. Because I fear it too. I've been a member of my Church my entire life, and despite some 'rebellious periods' where it wasn't always my first priority, it has always been my home, the base of my faith and relationship with God. I am as Mormon as they come. And yet. I sometimes wonder if I don't fit it, if I'm a 'square peg Mormon," as Liz put it -- which I find baffling. I mean, seriously, pretty much as Mormon as they come! Right down to genealogy books full of pioneer ancestors. I want to and look forward to raising my children in this Church, teaching them the gospel I love, growing the next generation of Mormons.
And yet I keep finding myself on different sides of issues, that make me feel like I'm ruffling feathers, that I'm making waves. That are making people 'doubt' my 'Mormon-ness'. I noticed it first when I was shocked and hurt by the reactions the 'Wear Pants to Church' movement was getting. The fact that anyone would give anyone any flack over what they wore to Church was about the most baffling thing I'd ever seen, and the fact they were 'calling out' these people for 'lack of faith' or 'lack of understanding' or for 'not really trusting the Savior or His prophets' was absolutely horrifying to me. I said so online, expressing my frustration of us, as a larger culture, for not loving people where they're at. I was 'unfriended' on facebook by several people. I'd never ruffled feathers before. I'd never had people question my testimony or commitment to the Church. And it was unsettling.
There's been so much talk about 'modesty' lately online, with the now viral 'bikini' video and the accolades and praise it's getting in conservative circles. Here's the thing. I dress 'modestly' by my Church and culture's guidelines. I've never really wanted to dress any other way, it's how I feel most comfortable and authentic to my feelings about my body, about God and about my faith. But, I am growing more and more resentful of the mounting 'modesty rhetoric' I'm seeing grow up in my faith community. I get dressing modestly as a principal. I really do. I chose to do so. I will teach my children to do so (though by different means.)
Earlier today, referencing the 'bikini' video, I wrote:
"I love the idea of teaching my daughters (and sons) mindfulness when it comes to modesty -- to know, personally, why they dress the way they do, how it makes them feel, what they're trying to portray, to be able to acknowledge that they live in a larger culture and those things they wear do send a message, and they have to figure out what message they're trying to send. I want them to wear clothing that makes them comfortable, fits the occasion and speaks to who they are and what they're trying to accomplish in life. I like the last part of her video where she talks about how are we going to use our beauty, our bodies -- these are issues I want my daughters aware of and thoughtful of. I just don't love that a sales pitch (including completely skewed study data that is being manipulated to make more sales) is being touted as some model for modesty. She's selling swimsuits -- she's claiming men (though admittedly highly sexist college students in the study) are somehow turning into slobbering objectifying Neanderthals when they see a women in a bikini -- but what about the swimsuits she's hawking? The study she uses didn't even use images on one piece swimsuits -- they showed fully clothed women and then bikini clad women (with the heads cut off) and then the study (shockingly) showed that self-identified sexists college guys brains reacted differently to the headless bikini clad woman than the fully dressed ones. My children will never be able to control the thoughts of every jerk, misogynist or pervert out there -- so they need to confidently make their own decisions about their choices in terms of how they present themselves in public, and feel confident in those decisions, because they'll never be able to please everyone or avoid objectification. We can only control ourselves, not others, so my job is to teach them self control and understanding of what is in their sphere of influence, and how they want to present themselves when they're outside of it.I also added this:
"I just think modesty is so much more than how much or how little of our bodies we cover -- and I want my children to respect and treat the same any person they meet, whether in bikini or burka, and to understand that clothing has to be one of the very worst ways to judge someone's character.
"From this post, "Jesus did not say “Whosoever lusteth after a woman…should tell her to put more clothes on, already, she’s causing him to have impure thoughts!” Jesus laid the blame at the feet of the man whose heart was filled with lust, not the women he dehumanized. And so should we. Because lust is a problem of the heart, not of the wardrobe."
"I want my kids to value themselves and others merely for 'being' -- being children of God. I just worry sometimes that the endless modesty rhetoric around them will subconsciously teach them that dress is far more important than it actually is . . . when my four year old comes home and talks about a neighbor child being 'immodest' (which is basically 'bad') because she's wearing a tank top, and that's something I've NEVER taught her, and I now have to 'reprogram' my four year old to value people in tank tops, I get frustrated . . ."True story -- Ellie recently was whispering with Annie about another neighbor girl who was 'dressed immodestly', in a voice that dripped of condescension. My heart dropped. My spunky, loving, amazing little girl was judging someone because she had a tank top on. A five or six year old, riding bikes in the summer, in a tank top. Could there be anything more innocent or childlike, and my precious little girl was looking down on this other person. (Which is ironic, as she is currently wearing a tank top and didn't think twice about it.) It reminded me of a conversation I'd had recently with one of my sister's (who shall remain nameless) on how bad she felt when she was in her early 20s and it dawned on her for the first time, "Ohhhhh, people who drink and smoke aren't BAD, they just weren't raised with those things held to the same standards as me." We can have a family standard of what is appropriate to wear or not (though I do want my children to learn to make those decisions on their own eventually, so they are their own personal convictions, not just 'what we do'), and we can judge how we personally fit within the standards of our faith community. But, what we can't do is judge what is 'immodest' or not for another person. Everyone determines their own standards of what is and isn't acceptable to them, and we get to respect people where they're at.
So I added this:
"The measure of someone's character is how they hold themselves up to their own standards, their own beliefs and their own values -- not how well they match up to mine. I just want to teach my kids in a way where they never mistakenly believe that because someone believes or does differently than we do (smoking, dress code, Sunday activities, whatever) that this lessens or changes their character. God judges the heart, and since we can never know what's going on inside someone's heart, I'd rather err on the side of compassion and acceptance and love, and not judgement or assumptions. I think commenting on other people's dress is pretty much drenched in either judgement or assumptions, so I'd rather stay away from it . . ."
I see any push back on the modesty rhetoric with this hardline, "But this is the way it is . . . you don't doubt the Church do you?" But that's the thing -- this isn't doctrine, it's cultural. And the culture is changing, and probably in response to an ever increasingly sexualized world, we Mormons seem to be 'clamping down'. Look at prom pictures from 40 years ago, unendowed women were often wearing tank-top type sleeved dressed. My Grandma and Mom have pictures in high school in lame jumpers that were pretty darn short. It wasn't seen as immodest. Now, my four year old is policing the shoulders of other children. That's an issue. In 1977, Spencer W. Kimball said, "Can there never be another Michalngelo? Ah, yes! His David in Florence and his Moses in Rome inspire us to the point of adulation . . ." Here Spencer W. Kimball is praising the David, one of the most famous nude sculptures in the world. Apparently, at that time, we understood the difference between 'porn' and 'art' and 'nudity'. Fast forward to last year, and there was a painting by Carl Heinrich Block, called "The Ressurection" (1873) that was featured in the Ensign, an official LDS publication. In that publication, they photoshopped this classic painting. Besides removing the angel's wings, they added 'Shade-like' shirts to the angels. Really? We photoshopped 200 year old angels to be more modest? Doesn't this seem like overshooting . . . missing the mark . . . focusing on unimportant, or less important, things to the point of just being, well, weird. One of our great prophets could look upon the David, and be moved by the beauty of it and the mastery and talent. Now 'immodesty' is seen as such a huge issue that some mid-level employee at the Church thought, "Quick, we better cover the shoulders of centuries-old painted angels." Is the human (or angel, I guess) body so scandalous and perverted in our thinking that all must be covered?
“But
then we ask, “Can there never be another Michelangelo?” Ah! Yes! His
David in Florence and his Moses in Rome inspire us to the point of
adulation. Did all such talent run out in that early century? Could not
we find a living talent like this, but with a soul that was free from
immorality and sensuality and intolerance?”
Yes, he referenced Michelangelo’s David, The same David who’s penis is there for all to see. SWK was fine with that, but the Ensign is worried about shoulders? Something is fishy…
- See more at: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/05/on-immodest-angels/#sthash.tPy0ZzvR.dpuf
Yes, he referenced Michelangelo’s David, The same David who’s penis is there for all to see. SWK was fine with that, but the Ensign is worried about shoulders? Something is fishy…
- See more at: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/05/on-immodest-angels/#sthash.tPy0ZzvR.dpuf
You don't have to agree with my take on these things. Like Liz's post said, we can both pray about something and come to different conclusions of what is right for our families. I personally am a little disturbed concerning some cultural things happening in my Church. And I'm afraid of how I'm perceived because I see them as concerning. But, this is the faith of my Fathers. Mormondom is my home. I have a deep love and appreciation for the gospel, and especially of my Redeemer, Jesus Christ. I don't like being made to feel 'less a part' of my own Church because I don't 100% agree with every cultural thing that finds itself coming across a local pulpit.
I would love to see us, collectively as an LDS culture, take a step back and remember the words of Joseph Smith, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." We can preach a standard, but we have to allow people to make their own choices, find their own path. Why have we become so threatened by people that are in their own place on their own faith journeys? It's like we want everyone to be in the exact same place at the exact same time, without allowing people their own time and space to 'govern themselves'. If people aren't allowed to question, push back, take their time, or find their own answers -- and we push them out because they don't see things the exact same way we do -- they will leave, they will find a new place to find their answers. And I believe, one day, God will hold us accountable for the roadblocks we placed in other people's progression. I believe that faith in God, real faith, means that we trust Him enough to take care of and guide His own children. I believe that while God may have some hard and fast standards that he requires of us, the greatest is to love one another. We only need to be concerned about ourselves -- and then focusing on loving others where they are at in their journeys. Everything else, let's just let God worry about it. He loves that person as much as He loves us, so He will work life in a way that helps that person get to where they need to be in this life. We can either lend a loving hand, or throw up roadblocks, and I imagine only one of those things is pleasing before God.
Liz quoted a mutual friend of ours in her blogpost, as saying to those who have left our faith, or who feel unwelcome or unloved there, or like they don't fit in, "We love you. We miss you. We want you back, no strings attached. Wear what you like, attend as often as you feel comfortable, serve in ways that fill you up, contribute whatever you can. There are no barriers to entry, no percentages we will require of you. Come as you are. We need the parts of you we don't have in common because those are the things we lack. We equally need the parts of you we do have in common because those are the things that make us family. We're sorry it took you leaving to help us see how valuable you are, in your own right. Please forgive us. Welcome home." I honestly can't imagine anyone having any issue with that? I guess I can see an argument of, "But, if you sacrifice nothing for the gospel, how can there be any reward?" To which, I guess, I'd respond that let's just get people back home, or in a place they feel accepted and loved. Love them, accept them, and let God work from there. But if they never sit next to us in Sacrament Meeting, how can they ever learn and grow in the gospel? How can they ever add to our community? Everyone's path starts somewhere, so why are we so stuck on everyone having the same view from the same point on the path as us? I want to just trust God that He guides each of us in this life, and my duty is to just try and love as He does, and leave the rest up to him.
I wish I could say I'm unaffected by being de-frieneded because I take a 'controversial' take on something on facebook. (Still baffling to me, since my biggest controversial takes were 'we shouldn't shame and threaten to kick women out of the Church for wearing pants' and 'let's watch out that modesty doesn't take a Pharisaical turn and drown out the more important doctrine of love and supporting one another.) Especially when I feel such love and acceptance from the Savior in my life right now when everything else has been so hard, that it pains me to think someone else looks at something I share and thinks I'm somehow way off track. But, I guess at the heart of it, I just need to practice what I'm preaching here -- and let go, and let God. Trust that God is leading me on the path He would have me on, and let everything else fall by the wayside. I can do that, right?
