Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? - Part 2

To not be lost, catch the first part of the discussion of modesty in Part 1.

(My apologies, it's a bit late for coherent writing, but I wanted to finish this before time gets away from me.)

So, back to modesty. What is it really all about? I think it's about avoiding pride. If we look at it this way, the admonition to be be modest in our dress has more to do with dressing so as not to intentionally draw undue attention to ourselves, being "free from conceit or vanity." Wearing a swimsuit to church would be immodest, because it would serve to draw attention to myself. Going swimming in tuxedo would likely have the same result. It seems that it is all about our attitude in the clothing choices we make. The outcome we desire has an impact on the correctness of an action.

Modesty, Garments, & Nudity? Part 1

Wow... after reading over at MormonMatters about the mormon nudists, I've been doing a lot of thinking. I've also been scanning the bloggernacle for older posts having to do with modesty, nudity, and the garment. I have to say my thinking has undergone some interesting shifts over the last couple of weeks.

So what exactly is modesty? It's really interesting, considering the emphasis in the current church, that I wasn't really able to find anything in the scriptures on the subject. A quick search of the scriptures led to a single use of the word modest, in 1 Timothy, Ch 2. Here, the use seems to fall in line with the traditional definition of modesty, which has nothing to do with dress per say. It's about being humble. About avoiding what the Book of Mormon calls fine twined linens and costly apparel. About not being prideful.

Looking through the scriptures, I find lots of negative comments about clothing generally, and some neutral ones like admonitions not to worry about it. When it's not mentioned negatively, any positive views are often talked about only in reference to clothing the naked. Here, it seems, it's more about providing something to someone who is poor, no different than providing housing to the homeless.

Teaching Ideals

Another interesting tidbit that kind of jumped out at me during conference:

The other day I was reading on another blog (I'll post a link if I can find it again) a discussion about the way the church always teaches to the ideal. There was a great deal of fus and debate in the comments, about whether the Church is right or wrong in teaching ideals -- like children have the right to a 2 parent, married in the temple, father working, mother staying at home kind of childhood -- and it was generally taken for granted by everyone that in fact the church does this. The main line of discussion seemed to be whether that was proper or not, whether that neglected those who couldn't meet those standards etc.

During the Priesthood session, Bishop Edgley had this to say:

Bishops, the sisters have a role in this effort. Because of the economy, many mothers are finding it necessary to make budget and other living adjustments. Some are even finding it necessary to leave the home to find work. The Relief Society sisters, with their specially endowed, compassionate hearts, can help. They can help identify the needy. They can teach. They can babysit, console, comfort, and encourage. They can make a difference.

I found this quite refreshing. He was explicitly telling the members of the church how they can help those who find themselves in circumstances that don't permit them to provide the "ideal." Telling the sisters to provide babysitting, so that mothers can work... what an awesome move that would be in the Church. If we can get around this whole idea of judging each other. Sure, it might not be the ideal, but maybe I should do all I can to make it more ideal.

Just a thought. I think it's interesting that sometimes we can get really caught up in arguing about whether something the Church is doing is the best or not... even when sometimes that may not be what they are doing at all.

Are We Too Reverent?

There's a scene in Monty Python & The Search for the Holy Grail, where Arthur and his knights see God in a vision. They, keeling and bowing before him, are told that He's tired of everyone groveling all the time. Now, I don't think that's how God feels at all, and I think we should do all we can do show proper reverence and respect to him.

However, I do sometime feel that we take reverence to an innappropriate extreme... or rather, in the wrong direction. Frequently (ok, maybe occasionally is more correct) we get counseled in conference (most recently, this weekend by Elder Nelson, if I remember correctly) about the proper form of prayer. (Maybe I'll update this with some quotes once the transcripts are available) He talked about the importance of using the respectful words of Thee, Thy, and Thou in place of You and Your.

Now I'm sure this is something that's been pointed out around the Blogernacle before, but I don't get it. In every other language I'm aware of, prayer is done in the familiar, not formal conjugations of verbs. We don't teach the Spanish-speaking members to pray in Usted. And my understanding is that Thee, Thy, and Thou were once to the English language what "tu" is to Spanish. We English-speakers started praying that way because that's how everyone prayed. Now, the familiar conjugation is virtually absent in English, so it has come to seem very old-fashioned, which we moderns seem to interpret as formal. But it's not. The reason for saying Thee and Thou should be to develop a closer relationship with Diety... not create distance.

The question is further complicated by the fact that 99.999% of english speakers haven't the foggiest idea how to conjugate their verbs appropriately to use Thee/Thy properly. Even in the church (myself included) we don't know how to do it with the exception of a few common verbs (didst, wouldst, hast, doest, etc). So how is that showing respect to use a gramatically innappropriate (and familiar) pronoun for the verb I'm using, or even switching between Thou and You in the same sentence? It's partly because of this that for me, years after my mission, I still do all my private prayer in my mission language... it's more intimate, and I can just talk, without thinking about the proper way to say "you wanted" in thou (thou wantedest?)

In another talk this weekend, we heard from Sister Liffert(?) of the Primary General Presidency. She encouraged us to teach are children proper respect by teaching them to call the members "Brother Smith" and "Sister Anderson" rather than Jack and Jill. Again, we miss the point of the titles brother and sister. They are intended (or iriginally did) to put us on the same level... not to put them on a pedestal of respect. So what do I call Dr. Smith, MD, DDS, MD, JD, PhD? I call him Brother Smith. What do I call Mr. Anderson, with no formal schooling past 3rd grade. Brother Anderson. It's not about respect. It's about the opposite of respect. That's why we read of the Saints talking of Brother Joseph, or Brigham... because they weren't demanding respect.

They were trying to be one... Sure, I'm the prophet, but that doesn't mean I'm better than everyone. Which brings up the question as to why do we Mormons tend to get a bit cranky when someone decides to call one of the Brethren by something other than the full name with middle initial. Why can't we say Gordon Hinkley, or Brother Monson? It just sounds so strange. (the one exception is to include only their title and last name... i.e. Pres. Hinkley) But since when was calling someone by their given name "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed"? Or is there some other reason we do that?

Basically, I think reverence and awe have their place. That place is Deity, not each other. And even then, I think we need to be careful that we're not creating artificial barriers, or creatin new distance between us and God by our "reverence," worrying too much about the words of our prayers, than our prayers themselves.

Mormons: Don't We Want Further Revelation?

I just stumbled accross a survey done by Pew on Religion. They've got their findings nicely presented at their site. As I went through the questions, it was interesting to see how the different churches ranked for different things. It was also interesting to note that the Mormons seem to always be flanked by the Jehova's Witnesses, the Evangelicals, and the Catholics. We always tend to be at one extreme or another.

One question I saw as particularly interesting was number 11. It asked, "Should your church: A) preserve its traditional beliefs and practices; B) Adjust beliefs and practices in light of new circumstances; C) Adopt modern beliefs and practices; or D) other?"

68% of Mormon's went with preservation (A), 23% think we should adjust in light of new circumstances (B), only 3% want to adopt modern practices (C), while 6% went with other (D).

From an LDS view, I completely understand the repudiation (97% of us) of choice C... of course the church shouldn't just adopt "modern" beliefs and practices about everything. But really, only 23% for choice B? It seems to me to be by far the best choice for a church who believes in continuous revelation. Preserve traditional practices? What about polygamy? That was changed due to new circumstances was it not? (See Official Declaration #1) The entire argument Wilford Woodruff makes seems to be one of adjusting our practices in light of new and changed circumstances (laws enacted by congress, what he saw would happen if they didn't). What about adding to the quorums of the Seventy? Making the endowment videos? Changes to the endowment ceremony, and more recently to the initiatory?

If a GA says that we'll never go to the moon, don't we adjust that belief when 1969 rolls around and Neil Armstrong proves otherwise? If BRM says blacks will never have the priesthood, don't we change that belief, and the practice of not ordaining them (or endowing them, sealing them, preaching in Africa, etc.) when new circumstances arise (i.e. Pres. Kimball - See OD #2)?

For me, the having C listed as an option (adopting modern practices) softens B considerably. B seems to be an ideal choice for the latter-day saints. Where does this desire to preserve historical practices come from? Why would we value them over the new? I guess I just don't see the value in or have a desire for the Church to try to preserve traditional beliefs/practices just because they're traditional. If male/female societal rolls are simply tradition, lets have away with them. If they're an intrinsic part of our eternal being, then let's uphold them.

Or are we (68% of us) just terrified of someone misinterpretting us as meaning C, that we move past B and all the way to A, just to make sure?

(Not) Speaking of the Temple

Speaking about the temple is a uniquely strange issue in the church. It is so strange to me that we don't have more open discussions about the temples. As a youth, it is drilled into you to prepare for the temple... but so little is said about what goes on there, aside from marriage. Being an endowed member, I'm fully aware of the covenants that are made therin, covenants not to reveal certain information outside the temple. However, those covenants are quite specific in what is not to be disclosed. Where do we get the notion that they apply, or should anyway, to the entire experience therein? For instance, take this quote from Elder Packer:

A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that the Lord did not tell all things to all people. There were some qualifications set that were prerequisite to receiving sacred information. Temple ceremonies fall within this category.

We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience.

He says, "We do not discuss the temple ordinances outisde the temples." Period? Why not? Where does this come from? For sure we discuss temple ordinances outside the temple. We talk about the sealing power, temple marriage, sealing children to parents etc. What about the endowment, and the washing/annointings? When do we ever promise not to discuss these things. A good example from James E. Talmage:

“The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions” (The House of the Lord, rev. ed. [1976], 84).

Here, Elder Talmage wrote specifically about the covenants that we make in the temple. Is there anything wrong with that? I think not. The covenants that we make in the temple are important. I think they are something we need to be prepared to make. That's why, I think, he wrote about them. The covenants of secrecy refer specifically to not revealing the New Name, the signs, tokens, and names of the signs. Other than that, why aren't we free to discuss the rest, to search for understanding together?

One might make the case that the brethren such as Elder Talmage have spoken about certain parts of the temple, because of the value in teaching them to those preparing for the ordinances, but that discussing the rest of the endowment (or initiatory) would be without redeeming merrit, while eliminating a sense of sacredness.

However, I feel that more open discussion would prove incredibly valuable to the endowed members of the church. For example, reading a post at FMH a while back, I came across a rather novel (to me at least) feminist interpretation of the fall and Eve's roll in it. As I read, I noticed that all the scriptural accounts (Genesis, Abraham, and Moses) could easily be interpreted that way, but that in this one particular issue, the endowment differed from all other accounts. Now, it dealt with an issue of chronology, and the endowment and scriptures are not always presented chronologically, but in this case the chronology could be significant. I found this fascinating: A) that the endowment differed here, yet I'd never noticed it or its implications; and B) that I couldn't talk about it to anyone.

Here I may have discovered something that may prove comforting to more feminist members of the church, who struggle with a patriarchal church. But, what is to be done when scripture and the temple diverge? Which takes precedence? Which carries more authority? That's something I've never been taught or heard mentioned in the church. If the endowments chronology is correct, then my new interpretation falls apart. If the Bible and Pearl of Great Price have it correct, however, the interpretation stands. Could I honestly teach this to others if the endowment differs? If not teaching it to help others, why shouldn't I at least be able to discuss it with other endowed members, to get their take on it?

So I guess I'll end with a plea... does anyone know where Elder Packer gets this notion that we "do not discuss the temple ordinances" outside the temple? It's practically ubiquitous in the church, but where does it come from? And why? The sacred need not be secret. Elder Oaks hassaid that "the ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church," yet it is far from secret. We have lessons on it in Priesthood/Relief Society, in Sunday School, in Primary, in FHE.... everywhere we talk and write and read about it, its significance and symbolism. Doing so has enriched my understanding of the atonement, and of the sacrament. It seems that to leave the temple untouched leaves to much that would be beneficial unsaid.

Sorry... crazy busy times...

Wow... I'm really sorry. This has been a crazy couple of weeks. I had a whole series of tests... some finals and a couple midterms leading up to spring break... which led into a fun and exciting, yet relaxing break from school, where I had no internet access. But, hopefully I'll be able to get something posted in the next day or so.