This is a guest post from LDS_Aussie. He is a PhD student in psychology and has served in many church positions including Branch president, EQ, HPGL and High Council in church land. This is his first guest post.
Just imagine you are lined up to take a penalty shot at the goals depicted to the left. What do you do? Having played a little bit of soccer myself, I would line up the ball, position my body, balance myself and then relax…..picturing the ball flying into the top corner of the goal with the subsequent and possibly humorous celebration. You start your run up to the ball and with all the preparation you did, the goalposts get moved to a new position!! All your preparation was for the goalposts in the original position, not the new one, and you miss. No goal and, unfortunately, no celebration…
An unlikely situation but a nice analogy for what I found myself in this week. I have daughters going to an FSY (For the Strength of Youth) activity. For those not familiar, this is a three to four day camp. Activities include dances, firesides and devotionals. For the most part, kids really enjoy the uplifting experiences, bonding and spirituality associated with going. I am supportive of such activities and the growth in the kids that inevitably follows.
Just a little bit about church culture before I go on…
Being from Australia, it is my feeling that we (Australian LDS) are a very conservative bunch. We are also a relatively “young” country as far as the church is concerned. For reason/s unknown to me, we feel the need to import the most restrictive and conservative elements of church culture from the USA. For example, very few people will publicly admit drinking Cola drinks, etc for fear of being identified as being on the slippery slope to apostasy.
Having been overseas many times, particularly to the USA, it strikes me as unusual that there are areas of the States are less conservative than us. For example, I was at a work conference in Mid-West and I was keen to visit the local Ward. The HPGL came to church in black dress pants, a blue and white check shirt, no tie and a brown sports coat. Apart from having significant issues with colour matching, I loved his outfit. Casual, but clean and respectful. However….not too much of that in Australia. For males, CEO style business attire…ONLY!!! The only people wearing clothes like that are visitors or the lost…we certainly get both…
As an interesting segway (sort of…) back to our original topic, the Bishopric member conducting the Mid West sacrament meeting indicated that the young women of that Ward recently had a wonderful time at girls camp…and what was the highlight??? Shooting a Shotgun at targets…probably no drama to people from the USA….but unheard of here in Australia!!! Back to FSY…
In registering my daughters and reading the FSY website I came across information that I found hard to reconcile. Quote from the FSY website:
“Clothing – Skirts, dresses, and shorts must extend at least to the knee”
Ref: https://www.lds.org/youth/fsy/standards?lang=eng&country=au
Where did this come from? My daughters wear what I would consider modest clothing (more importantly they are modest in their behaviour and action) however some of their skirts do not exactly comply with this standard. Did the goalposts just get shifted?
The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (and approved by the first presidency) states this:
“Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts”
Ref: https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng
How can a further, prescriptive definition be applied to this – just for the purpose of an activity?
I asked around with some friends in other areas of the city in which I live and received a few interesting replies. These were from parents who had served in both ward and stake youth positions.
- A number of young women reported significant levels of anxiety regarding attendance at FSY due to the heavy handed policing of this (and other) policies.
- A number of young women report anxiety about the potential for being publicly humiliated in front of other youth, should their dress standards not comply exactly with the policy. I have been provided examples of this occurring at previous FSY’s.
- Apparently this additional standard has its roots in BYU and its honour code – I understand FSY has its origins at BYU.
- It does not seem universal. For example on the South African FSY site there is no reference to this additional standard. REF: https://www.lds.org/youth/fsy/standards?lang=eng&country=za
- Any attempts to question this additional standard with leaders were met with either flat out refusal or stone walling.
I have attempted to clarify the disparity between these two different positions with my bishop and stake president. I received some genuine replies from my bishop, however none of them directly addressed my concerns. It was said that the additional policy assists leaders to have consistency in the youths’ dress. I have not heard back from the Stake President.
Whilst it may seem like a trivial issue to some, these are my concerns:
- The standard has been set. Why and who has decided to change it for FSY?
- How can I support an alteration in the standard when the clothes that my daughters currently wear can be worn in a Chapel and in the House of the Lord, and yet not be considered appropriate for FSY?
- Does this engender in our kids the thought that the longer the dress, the looser the top, the more modest?
- Are we, through this additional standard, discouraging those who should really be going to such an activity from coming? How do you bring a non-member given the significant restrictions placed on dress – amongst other things?
From a personal perspective……I have decided to leave the decision for my children’s choice of clothing to them. The clothing they have is consistent with the principles of modesty, respect and the first presidency stated position. I am supportive of their choice in this regard. I have no intention of enforcing adherence to the additional standard imposed by his activity. I’m confident that the spiritual uplift and experiences they will have at FSY will NOT be the result of wearing a longer skirt than they currently wear to the Temple.
- Have you found yourself in situations like this where the goalposts were shifted?
- Have you been asked to “police” this type of standard?
- What have been your experiences in raising potential concerns?
- Are we over-reacting or is there a potential for “slippery slope” here?
- Have you been confronted as a parent regarding this, or similar standards?
What did you do? Discuss…
Wheat & Tares 
I too am an Australian. I have lived and studied in the USA both on the East Coast and Utah. I am also a returned senior missionary, Bishop, BP etc..I had loved my many times visiting the US and find it a curious mix of the best and worst.I also love the gospel.
What I have experienced over my 58 years of Church life is that Church or more specifically SLC Church culture is an unhealthy mix of Western American Romanticism coupled with a good dose of elevated and enabled dictatorial power which is thrust upon the ‘lesser nobles’,(try being a senior missionary couple (non US) with 6 other couples from the West). Trying to explain this to people from the West is like trying to tell a personality disordered person that something is wrong with their behavior as they look over their shoulder trying to see who you are speaking too.
This Cultural imperialism from the ‘Center Stake of Zion’ has had terrible consequences in our country eg Our current dress standards (suits , white shirts, business attire) are strictly enforced often directly by our leadership e.g. my son was almost stopped from blessing his child because his white shirt had tiny thin stripes in it.
Again, on our Mission our western American Mission President stated in one of our Zone conferences with the ‘immortal’ words that he was pleased, “To see us in the uniform of the Priesthood”.I was aghast!!! Yes, the Business model, I don’t know what the Sisters thought?
There is always a predisposition to ‘improve’ the gospel in Church Culture, not only in dress but in the Word of Wisdom etc. More recently again with our Area Presidencies “Recovery nights’, where we go out to ‘recover’ the ‘lost’membership. This is a typical business model again where ‘we’ are to improve the Home Teaching program (obviously!) and annoy those whom we had already visited many times over the last 4 years or so.
We are headed, if we are not careful into the realm of the Pharisees, where we are to measure worthiness by the mechanical trivia. I see LDS Western Church culture as one of the very troubling and pertinent issues in the global church today.
So in summary, Western Church culture is imperialistic and highly romantic and somehow mixed with a troublesome political Republicanism and equally a sense of elevated entitlement in dealing with those not of the ‘Center Stake of Zion’ or as someone said to me as I challenged their view on our mission “look brother the Lord placed us in Utah for a reason and you better understand that!” I actually did that why I disagreed! So in the Churches business model (other than a religious or pastoral model, which I think we do not operate) we need to constantly ‘improve’ everything…… even the length of a dress.
Follow Handbook 2 and don’t worry about it. Things change with an open canon and you must have an open mind and realize we are humans being charged to run Christ’s Church on Earth. Besides, the internet makes things change too fast and seem in flux when, in fact, they are.
Regarding the HPGL, he should be shot for dressing like that. But maybe he had reasons and you just witnessed an anomoly.
Well intended but simpleton pharsical “if a little is good, more is better” thinking often complicated by the heresy of labeling such folly as the “Lord’s standard” (it isn’t). And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation…
Kangaroo too, personality disordered person is an accurate description of the kind of people who come up with and zealously enforce these idiot standards on our youth.
To answer the basic question, the goalposts haven’t shifted. They’ve just made their way to Australia. The standards for (what we call EFY – “Everything For Youth”) FSY are pretty standard here in the States and the kids just sigh and conform to avoid hassles. If you come from a ward where these types of personality disordered persons are in charge of Mutual, you’re already used to it; if not, you just learn to roll your eyes and cope.
The HPGL had no fashion sense, granted, but then I still think brown shoes with a blue suit look stupid. I am heartened to see more instances of men not wearing ties to church here in the American Midwest, although I still do. (I don’t always cinch it up all the way, and I’ve been known to wear a bolo as a compromise when I really don’t want to wear one. 🙂 )
Kangaroo Too: “look brother the Lord placed us in Utah for a reason and you better understand that!” That’s a classic. And truer than the speaker realized– Utah; too small to be a nation, too big to be an asylum.
“How do you bring a non-member given the significant restrictions placed on dress – amongst other things?” This has been my biggest concern. When I was growing up, our stake had an amazing girls camp at a BSA site in the mountains of Pennsylvania. There were canoes, a lake, fishing, hiking, all sorts of great things. We didn’t have really any dress code back then – this was in the first half of the 80s. Girls wore two piece swimsuits, shorts, tank tops. It was girls only anyway, so who cared? And lots of girls brought non-member friends. Nowadays, who would bring a non-member friend when part of that invitation includes explaining to her that she will be publicly shamed for her clothing choices and called immodest, and that a good deal of her day will be trying not to run afoul of the behavior-policing leaders?
I opined about these ever-increasingly strict dress code guidelines that make no logical sense in this post: http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/09/drowning-in-modesty-guidelines-at-girls-camp/
Generally speaking, the more we focus on policing behavior, the less we will grow as a church because who would go through that difficult transition to join our community of believers? Only the very small percentage who already meet those requirements and who are comfortable with being judgmental tattle-tales.
FSY standards are strict in Britain too. When I asked why they went further than the FtSoY book, the reply was: sometimes we have to sacrifice to get the blessings.
Oh dear.
And your observation about Aussies being even more conservative than the American LDS members is spot on. It’s something that surprised me, but has been fairly consistently true in my experience. There were quite a few Aussies in my Singapore ward, and I also worked for a Mormon Aussie for about a year. Good people. More conservative than Provo.
I agree with the post. This behavioral and dress policing are ridiculous. The culture of the Church teaches and fosters a focus on rules at the expense of true principles.
I have found, with over 40 years as an adult, holding leadership positions in Ohio, Texas, and Arizona, that the caution in D&C 121: “When a man gets a little authority…he immediately begins to exercise unrighteous dominion” is so very true.
Without wanting to hijack this thread, I also see this unfortunate phenomenon (local members/leaders and their overreach) as bearing on the recently blog-debated issue of whether church courts (yes, I know the name was changed “to protect the innocent”) should be locally or centrally controlled. Local leaders vary substantially in their sensitivities and biases (not that the 15 in the COB don’t, but they have actual peer pressure). For a given situation, one may crucify you where another will simply council with you. And, NO, inspiration does not address that problem. In my 40 years of experience in bishoprics, stake presidency meetings, high council and priesthood presidency meetings, actual inspiration was as rare as hen’s teeth. Even claims of inspiration were almost unheard of. (That was conveniently ignored when speaking publicly or calling someone to a position).
Despite the UK having longer roots than AUS with Mormonism, I think it also gets the conservative cream off the Utahn cultural crop. Especially when you get a group of Mormons with enough critical mass to sustain an insular culture. I think one reason why this happens is that people come from Utah and feel like they need to ‘show people in the mission field’ how it’s done, and that supports the institutionalised form of the same cultural exportation in the curriculums. We then assume this is the gospel and not a Western American social norm thing. For me, I grew up in the UK and then went to BYU and the main shock was realising how much of what I thought was Mormonism was actually Utahnisms; hedges-about-the-law cultivated on American soil. I think in some ways the church wants this to happen (see point 3 of this article: https://www.lds.org/new-era/2014/02/not-dating-youre-not-alone?lang=eng – apparently if your home culture doesn’t match with Mormon dating culture, you have to work to change your home culture, even though, in my experience, dating culture as per the FTSOY only really exists in Western American states) and in others, it’s oblivious to it happening in the same way a fish doesn’t know what water is.
naomi: I did a post a few years ago about Mormon / Utah colonialism in the church that you might enjoy. http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/24/cultural-colonialism-the-sun-never-sets-on-the-mormon-empire/
“How can I support an alteration in the standard [when it] can be worn in a Chapel and in the House of the Lord, and yet not be considered appropriate for FSY?”
Point #3 in the OP (deriving from BYU) explains it.
This is the female equivalent of the beard ban. Okay for the temple. Not okay for BYU.
Hawk – really enjoyed that post. I think I read it after graduating from BYU and right before I moved back home for a bit. I had a bit of a giggle remembering meeting a Taiwanese convert who told me that the missionaries in her area had tried to get people to celebrate Pioneer Day. Bonnets and all.
Let me assure you, it was no “trivial issue” here in Scandinavia last summer. There was a roar and an outrage from all over the stakes. Many strong active families refused to send their children to FSY, and in the end several stake presidencies felt compelled to demand some form of an explanation from the Area Pres.
There is a clear majority of the members here that considers the rules of the FSY to be damaging and borderline heretic, as FSY with no veiled wording try to imply that the spirit is dependant on outward appearance.
There’s a lot more to say about this and our experience with FSY up here in the north. But it will suffice for now.
My experience is that at a “higher level ” in Church leadership there is a lot of ” group think” and ” group talk”. The imperialistic export of culture is not only on dress……words, ideas ( generally lack of them) is paramount at Area level, so don’t hope anything except the (group ) ” party line”.
This is all systematic of many of the problems in the church.
It is the Lords Church but do we make it difficult!!!
Hi all. I’m glad this has resonated with so many of you. It’s rather concerning to hear it happening in such different places across the world.
As an addendum to my article, I had the following experience.
A member of the stake YW posted an announcement on facebook regarding a dance that week. It provided details and logistic information then said something like “and remember…collared shirts for the boys and skirts down to the knees girls”. What??? I posted a comment asking where it said that dances had that particular standard. No reply, and within 20 minutes that comment was deleted. No explanation. Nothing.
I think we have some work to do in our stake…..
Kangaroo,
Your comment about “We are headed, if we are not careful into the realm of the Pharisees” is something that I have been saying to several people. Of course it isn’t just dress standards, but that is a huge example. This stuff is damaging our youth.
Way to go Scandinavia!
Worse than that, it’s driving Millenials out of the church. They hate hypocrisy and have far more distaste for it than prior generations.
I have a grand daughter going to the same FSY in Sydney. When her family read the dress standards they asked if she really wanted to conform to be with her friends. She did.
The YSA conference on the Gold Coast lest year the leaders were told to not comment on dress standards.
Where is this wonderful rebellious spirit (sanity) coming from in Scandinavia. How can we cultivate it.
It seems there are a few unthinking people who organise these events, and they can not be questioned or asked to justify their decisions. They should be. Perhaps we could start an email assault on their site?
Agree with Hawkgirl that this kind of thing is extremely counter productive. It is nothing to do with the Gospel and is purely conservative US culture. If you look up modesty in the scriptures it is all about expensive dress, pride, and disrespecting the poor. Nothing about dress length.
There is a place for feedback on LDS.org.au I left my view that there is no point doing missionary work if what we are selling is the Gospel of Jesus Christ but wrapped is US conservative culture, which detracts completely from the message.
We are driving away our youth and repelling any new, with this garbage.
Please review it.
Geoff -Aus let’s face it !The First Presidency has obviously got it wrong with the in For the Strength of Youth
and it’s standards for dress . it needed the BYU western US standard to help correct our leadership and import it internationally!!!!!
Go Cougars !!!!
I haven’t been to Australia, but I’ve seen things taken to the extreme on a regular basis in Spanish-speaking wards all over the US and Mexico. I’ve seen no caffeinated soda allowed (or else no TR), no baby blessings allowed on non-fast Sundays, a directive from the bishop that we are to attend the temple at least once per month (not just encouraged, but stated as a requirement and asked about during the TR interview).
And white shirts have been absolutely mandatory in every Spanish-speaking ward I’ve attended (too many to count).
Active and glorious, it’s nice to know there are Scandinavian stakes who have my back. Here in Britain I felt like I was the only one complaining about FSY. I sent a strongly worded email to the stake officer responsible for getting all our youth to FSY outlining all my concerns.
Like Geoff-Aus, we left the choice to attend to our kids, and our daughter opted to go. She wanted to meet other youth.
I have a couple of posts about FSY (http://www.wheatandtares.org/13953/fsy-the-new-efy/ and http://www.wheatandtares.org/15188/fsy-report-lets-pretend-its-sunday/).
naomi, I’m with you on the cultural imperialism. Back when I was a youth we were always complaining about about the different dating cultures that were unacknowledged.
My own musings on culture are here (http://www.wheatandtares.org/13395/bringing-the-good/), and Wilfried Decoo has an excellent paper on the topic published in the IJMS (http://ijmsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/IJMS/2013-6/Wilfried%20Decoo%20IJMS%202013.pdf).
Sadly your experience is not unique. The goal posts on modesty have been consistently shifting in one general direction for years now. You are lucky. It sounds like your FSY modestly policing was well…modest. Did they require that girls where t-shirts OVER their one piece swimsuits at all times? Did they stipulate that NO SHORTS of any kind were allowed? There are multiple stakes that are creating just such rules for girl’s camp and other events. It is simply insanity at this point.
I would suggest what is happening is that at the ward and stake level, to avoid conflict, the most conservative families are basically getting to set the rules and few people are pushing back or doing so successfully. I think there are a lot of people that would like to, but their simply are not the official rhetorical resources available. There isn’t a single modern talk on modesty that warns of extremism in the fundamentalism variety. Seriously, if someone here can point to one single talk or Ensign article that explicitly warns against over doing modestly standards please share! Instead from the Friend, to the Liahona, to GC the modesty rhetoric has only ratchetted up. On the BYU campuses (particularly BYU-I) it has reached crazy levels. This gives the most skittish and controlling parents in every locality all the support they need to suggest and enforce draconian standards. WE can try and argue back with common sense but we are devoid of church-sanctioned resources to bolster our view.
I am intrigued by the Swedish case mentioned in the comments. It is actually great to some some collective insurrection on this. We are in such a weird place. Tank tops are evil? Shirts over swimsuits? Photoshopping school pictures? Banning skinny jeans? No strapless prom dresses? I think we have slid so far out of whack it is hard for many Mormons to see just how nuts it has become.
Thanks, hedgehog! Solid shares.
I feel like the ratchetting up has a lot to do with a few things: the insistence ‘the world’ is getting worse (so we must get ‘better’, I.e. Hedgier about the law to the point where hedge becomes law) the special brand of martyrdom that helps some folk feel as if they’re more committed (there’s a fair bit of psychology behind the idea of feeling more committed to that you sacrifice more for, regardless of the cause’s level of actual virtue). It’s a powerful combination, and I think it’s catalysed best in areas where one already feels to be in a social minority due to religious orientation. It also exists in areas where Mormons are enough in number to support that critical mass I talked about, but perhaps for additional reasons, like human need to create social strata based on common behavioral codes (gotta be able to tell the Super righteous and obedient from the Lazier ones, right…)
I am always kind of surprised reading things like this. Either I had an incredibly conservative mother(which is very likely), or these rules took a really long time to disseminate to the rest of mormondom. I distinctly recall fighting with my mother over 15 years ago because I wanted a pair of pajamas where the top was a tank top. She only ever compromised when I promised I would always change before I left my room so I would not expose my immodesty to the rest of the family.
There was never even a debate about things like skirts, it was to the knees or no dice. She would even measure my jeans’ waistline to ensure no more than a thumbs knuckle would fit between the top of my jeans and my belly button. Finding out this is not the norm in the rest of the world just makes me envious of all the fights we could have avoided over modesty when I was growing up.
Also to clarify, I did not grow up in the mormon corridor, I spent my childhood on the east coast and then moved to the pacific northwest for my teenage years.
I get so tired of the some old, same old bash Utah. I live in Boumtiful, Uah and recently was in the young women’s presidency. At our girls camp many young women wore 2 piece bathing suits, shorts were not checked regarding length, and tank tops were worn without the world ending. In fact, the message was clear to make ALL girls feel welcomed and loved. I get that members would like a scape goat to blame all of their problems on and I guess blaming Utah is a quick and easy target, but as uncomfortable as it may be you should look in your own stake or region community to see who is enforcing such stupid, rigid rules, and then as group of saints either ignore them and act in a more Christ like way or calmly confront them and let them know that crazy modesty rules and dress codes will not be enforced by any local leaders. Bashing on Utah because of incorrect stereo types won’t help you. This is a problem that can be solved if each ward and stake chooses to love and fellowship instead of judge and “enforce” what is perceived as the “modest” or “correct” way to dress.
Teri, you know as well as the rest of us that “Utah” is Mormon shorthand for “Church headquarters.” There may be pockets of sanity in individual Utah wards and stakes, no doubt about it. But the “stupid, rigid rules” for EFY/FSY do not come from “local leaders.” They come from a Church planning office at BYU, which sponsors those activities, has its own quasi-Islamic dress code, and is located in – you guessed it.
If you really think the commenters here are “scapegoating Utah” and not Church culture as a whole, then I suggest you start reading more carefully.
There are far more than a few pockets of sanity in Utah. Unfortunately, BYU is perceived as the entire state of Utah. What comes out of BYU or church headquarters does not represent the way the membership here operates. When it comes to draconian rules most of us roll our eyes and do what we feel is best for our local ward . Maybe it’s because we live so close to the source that it has no mystery to us. We know life as we know it will go on if we wear shots above the knees or colored shirts to chuch vs white ones. The stupid rules are for the most part ignored. No one get excommunicated over it, temple recommends are not taken away and we for the most part get along with life.
Delina – I was raised in Europe and Asia and I had the same rules. I had to kneel down to check skirt lengths, and lean over to check my shirt didn’t fall too far forward and expose cleavage. This system originated with the FTSOY
As I recall, someone said there was a BYU poster saying “On Your Knees” or something about making sure your skirt length touched the floor. Nevermind that it had both a sexual and humiliating overtone. BYU Honor Code Office = the Tobias Funke of poster-writing.
Teri – thanks for defending the sanity within the belly of the beast.
I think it was in the following podcast where some fine sisters talk about how at GIRLS CAMP in Texas (GIRLS camp were only a few grandpa aged men where there for ‘safety’) they required the girls wear blue jean pants (not shorts) and had to cover up when swimming with (explicitly required) crew-necked tshirts! This is where it is 100F! That is unsafe!
That is crazy talk. I am just waiting for the rule about not being able to walk farther on the Sabbath than you can throw your shoe. We are becoming the church of latter day Pharisees.
Happy hubby, I totally agree this is 100f! I have a hard time understanding why local stake yw and ward yw leaders allowed this to happen. If this demented idea was ever proposed in my stake or ward it would be very quickly shot down. I really believe as local leaders of the youth we need to speak up and not allow the more crazy element to take over.
I took Geoff-Aus’s suggestion and wrote to our Area Website. Below is the response ….note the implied “threat” at the end…….one of our cultural problems.
LDS Response Team responded on December 16, 2014 at 7:49 AM as follows:
Thank you for using the Feedback and Response system of LDS.org. Your e-mail is one that is beyond the scope of those of us responding to the comments and questions that are submitted on LDS.org. Our “Response Team” is made up of a small group of volunteers and Church Service Missionaries who live in various areas of the world. The purpose of the feedback function is to help the developers improve the website’s function or content of lds.org.
The only information I have available on dressing is what is printed in, For the Strength of Youth,
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? . . . The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 1 Corinthians 3:16–17
“Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the
stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. Young men and
young women should be neat and clean and avoid being extreme or inappropriately casual in clothing, hairstyle, and behavior. They should choose appropriately modest apparel
when participating in sports. The fashions of the world will change, but the Lord’s standards will not change. “
In the Aaronic Priesthood Sunday lessons it also states”“As members of the Church we have the opportunity to sustain those the Lord has called to serve. We raise our hand to indicate that we sustain the General Authorities and officers of the Church and each of the leaders in our wards and stakes—including Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidencies. Sustaining leaders involves more than just a raised hand—it means that we stand behind them, pray for them, accept assignments and callings from them, hearken to their counsel, and refrain from criticizing them.”
Respectfully,
LDS RESPONSE TEAM/hs
Like teri, I live in Bountiful. And I can attest that we have our fair share of dress code crazies. The old ladies are the worst. They’ve complained about women wearing open-toed shoes (showing toe is scandalous) and young men passing the sacrament in colored shirts.
It would be easier to dismiss if the majority just laughed off this stuff and carried on as you suggest. But that’s not how it goes in my ward. In the past year, our bishop actually gave his approval to have a couple from the ward visit a family to express concern/disapproval of them allowing their son to pass the sacrament in colored shirts.
Perhaps being close to HQ removes the sheen for some, but it almost has the opposite effect for others. (They’re so close, they can almost taste the promotion.)
“it means that we … refrain from criticizing them.””
I do not agree with this at all. If they are worthy of criticism, they should be criticized, just like any other leader. This is crazy talk that implies our leaders are infallible, and that is just not true. Bad policies should be criticized even if these bad policies originate at the COB.
I sustain our leaders, and I can get behind “means that we stand behind them, pray for them.” I will accept church callings that do not interrupt my family or work schedules, but if these callings do, then I will politely turn them down. I will not willy nilly “accept assignments and callings from them” if there is a problem.
I will “hearken to their counsel” if it is good counsel, but I won’t hearken to bad counsel period.
Sustaining has morphed into something that it is not if that is the definition of sustaining.
The criticism reference I thought was a bit much. In Australia we have had some wonderful area and mission
Presidents and some dreadful ones. Recently at one of our Area Meeting we we’re told basically how useless we were, some years ago we had a Mission President who decided to instigate Polygamy amongst the serving Sisters……now not to push the obvious too much but with both these attitudes we DO need to criticise poor leadership and unrighteousness behaviour………do we remember a leader with a crying child on YouTube ?..
I think that “refraining from criticizing them” is different than criticizing their decisions. It is totally uncalled for to state that some leader is an idiot. But I don’t think it is the same thing to say, “I have a real hard time accepting that decision” – and we should be willing to “go to their boss” if they don’t accept any feedback.
I do try and put myself in their shoes (in fact I have been a “leader” several times). I don’t have an issue with someone bringing a disagreement to me. I would rather that than someone talking behind my back.
Calling “some leader an idiot” is an insult and should never be construed as criticism. That is way over the line, and I agree that is not really criticism.
Calling a policy “idiotic”, while crass, is more of a gray area, but I see nothing wrong with people criticizing policies that are bad (such as a beard policy, modesty policies, etc.) There was nothing wrong with saying, “I disagree with this policy because of x, y, z reasons, and I don’t think it was well thought out.” I’d even say it is ok to say “This policy is dumb.” Now some will say I’m criticizing the leaders, but I’m not. A dumb policy is a dumb policy, even if made by a smart leader.
The difficulty again is that there is no way to communicate your opinion of a policy to anyone further up the food chain than your SP.
How have the Scandinavians organised themselves to do this?
Do you have a nation wide facebook page, or how are you organised to convey concerns?
This policy on dress standards is on LDS.org.au which is the national church website, and applies to all the FSY being held in Australia. Australia is the same land area as USA so FSY are held in various places, but the dress standard is uniform.
So as kangaroo 36 says there is a place for feedback but the person who responds has no power and, I suspect does not convey the concern to those who do have power. I suspect they are to convey enquiries from non members to missionaries.
The fact that the church is now sending out a newsletter (is that coming from COB?) gives hope that there might possibly be an opportunity for meaningful feedback soon.
Culture on this can largely be local. I think it is unfair to bash Utah categorically – though due to the close proximity and high mobility rates of members around the valley it shouldn’t be surprising that many wards and stakes share cultural elements.
I have found that often wards outside of Utah and especially overseas tend to be more severe and strict than Intermountain Region wards. For me the question is why is reasonableness *losing* at so many wards and stakes across the world. Why is stopping more wards and stakes from “rolling their eyes” or more moderate parents and leaders winning out when these issues arise?
Rah
I’m sorry, to many of us Aussies and I might say many in Europe (where I lived for a number of years) the cultural exports including behaviour and other standards from ‘ the centre Stake of Zion ‘ has been pressured upon us by many many leaders and a number of them very unpleasant . I lived through one in particular but he was not the only one. This has been long infiltration over decades. This was excepted in our culture as we naively thought that this was also Christ’s ‘culture’.
Perhaps well illustrated by the Senior Couple from SLC who said to me while serving in a very poor Eastern European country where people had only poor public transport to get to church in well below freezing temperatures and wore slacks to church….. ” I now know why we were sent to this country on our mission , to teach them how to dress for church”.
As I said previously some struggle from the US to understand that there has been a long flow of ‘foreign’ cultural ideas and there is no real forum to really have your concerns dealt with …..it stops with the SP’ s.
That’s why many of us outside the US struggle with many things that seem a nonsense to us.
Wow. I thought the LDS aussie was me when the article started.. But it wasn’t. I resigned last year with my wife and 3 kids. Scary moment there. Boyd, from Oz
rah: I think the strictness in outlying areas is a byproduct of colonization. In Asia, as you observe, countries that were occupied by other nations adopt the foods and cultures of those oppressive regimes to an alarming degree, considering them superior. I suppose when someone conquers you, it’s easy to elevate their preferences to a higher level than your own. Consider how the Taiwanese revere Japanese culture (bath houses and food), how the Filipinos adore all things American, and how the Vietnamese have incorporated French cuisine, language, and plumbing.
14 active. How are you organised in Scandinavia that you can convey your concerns in a concerted way like this?
Please, we need to do the same in Australia. Here we might individually complain, but most just stay quiet, because we know we are powerless.
How do you present a united voice?
Kangaroo,
Having served a mission in Europe and lived as a non-missionary in Europe and now Asia, I totally agree with you and hawkgirl that a partial explanation for the more conservative attitudes found in wards outside the intermountain west does have to do with “colonization” dynamics driven by missionaries and missionary couples as well as non-local area leadership. There is also often just not the institutional and historical memory available in many locals outside the BoM-belt that help seperate culture from doctrine and practice. Because there are so few local units, members just naturally see less diversity in practice and norms and that makes hetrogeneity hard to hold on to over time.
Instead of “colonization”, a more accurate term shared with me by the highest ranking locally born LDS hierarch in a Caribean nation (with a twinkle in his eye): “occupation”.
When the US gets taken over by Canada, I’m still not enjoying hockey. Colonization be darned.
The correlated church materials are there so that every ward across the planet teaches the same stuff. This uniformity is cultural within the church. Having now lived in Salt Lake City for a dozen years, I know there is an unwritten rule where, in essence, you follow the priesthood leaders blindly, and if they’re wrong, you’ll still be blessed for it. Past GA’s have even stated this. What comes down from above (including all church sponsored activities)is priesthood approved, so you must follow.
Sometimes I point out to my wife the silliness of member expectations of certain “unwritten standards” and she defends it by stating that it’s not taught by the church. This may be true, but some things are expected, even though there may be nothing written about it in any manual.
Plus, many of those cultural expectations come from the teachings of the Lord’s annointed. This talk: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/standards-of-dress-and-grooming?lang=eng
given by Elder Oaks in 1971 references a talk given by Spencer Kimball in 1951. I’ll paraphrase: The less skin you show, the less you tempt boys. These kinds of sources are where the stringent dress codes that the Aussie is complaining about come from.
It may not be in a church manual (a modern one anyway), but somewhere a prophet gave a talk at church conference (as such, it’s considered scripture) that spurred official and unofficial standards. Those conservative members that “invent” tight standards didn’t do it from their own thinking, they did it because they heard/read a talk about it somewhere, sometime…
Boyd #45. Interested in your comment… No need to answer, but was your resignation related to this topic or other issues??? Ps. Yes scary when you realise such similarities in demographics, church experience, etc…
Hank #51. Your point that “they heard/read about it in a talk sometime” certainly resonated with me. This perhaps is the crux of the matter. The elevation of words – in this case to a distinct audience of students at a university – to perhaps meaning this is what we should ALL do as a church is dangerous. The article you reference is definitely worth a read. I was left with the distinct impression that according to Oaks, the reason why we are modest is because the way we are viewed by other people – symbolises rebellion, they are visible, they tempt young men etc. There is some mention of modesty as a principle, however this seems token in the light of what I consider to be the overwhelming push of the article.
Interestingly, why is such an article in a Church mag anyway. This is an address to BYU students about THEIR code – not the church’s. This is where we go wrong.
I’m pretty sure if we had Scott Sterling, there wouldn’t be any issues. Brilliant Mormon goal keeper from Yale. 😉
LDS_Aussie #52: Apparently you’ve read the talk by Elder Oaks, but read the talk given by Spencer Kimball. Here’s a website of other quotes of prophets, GA’s, etc. on the topic: http://margiesmessages.com/modestqu.htm
For me, anyway, it’s easy to see why members think it’s doctrine/principle.
When I first joined the church at 26 (19 years ago)back in Upstate New York I was told no caffeine, it’s against the WoW. Some missionary or local church leader heard a talk about it somewhere and viola, an unwritten standard was born. Come to find out, in the 1970’s there was an ongoing debate in Salt Lake whether colas and chocolate should be banned. After all they contain caffeine, which is the only reason anyone can come up with to justify God’s dislike of coffee and black tea (green tea ok, it all has to do with fermentation, but I digress).
So, people hear it, and since it often comes from people during General Conferences, well the assumption is it must be true. When these things that you think are American peculiarities spreading throughout the world, they are not. They are strictly LDS peculiarities, which are based on old Puritan ideals. I’m sure everyone reading this has met several Americans. The conservative ones are LDS, some form of Evangelical Protestant, Muslims or Hasidic Jews. The Americans that aren’t weird (at least not AS weird :)) are typically not associated with conservative religions. What you are experiencing is indeed LDS culture, nothing more.
You wrote that the Oaks talk was directed at BYU students, not all members. BYU students are the cream of the crop. They are to be representative of the church and all of its teachings. They are to go forth and throughout their lives be an example of God’s people at all times. So, if BYU students need to be modest, then so do all other members. It’s not written, it’s just understood. This is why it’s in a church magazine, the Ensign. As we know, church publications are en ensign to the world, so, again, the unstated expectation is that whatever the Ensign, Liahona and all the other church mags state, well, you can take that to the bank.
Church correlated material and the church publications are all the ideal. It’s like writing down your description of a perfect world. They don’t take into account contradicting statements from past prophets, church history, cultural and economic differences or other challenges that most face in the real world outside of the intermountain west (which is a world all its own).
Sorry for the epistle…
Rah
Exactly!!!
Thanks
Reply to LDS aussie. Who asked….
Boyd #45. Interested in your comment… No need to answer, but was your resignation related to this topic or other issues??? Ps. Yes scary when you realise such similarities in demographics, church experience, etc…/
I’ve posted a few things over the years on various sites, through my progression out of the church. Usually that name or AussieOi. From here, to Ldsfreedomforum.com, pure mormonism, to staylds, to new order Mormon, and then rfm and the big one reddit.
I had the same callings as you, and similar education sans psychology. I’d expect if we don’t know each other we are no more than one degree separated. Such is the small size of our cultural and religious experience here in Australia.
I don’t want to interfere with the flow of the site and your thread. I’ll stay objective. But will be respectful in answering your questions.
The reason we left was because basically, once you have heard something, you can’t “unhear” it.
After that, it was then a matter of well, how do we carry on in the church? The answer was to be focusing on Christ, and teaching Christ, especially to our children and to the youth. I was HP teacher once a month, weekly gospel essentials teacher and a ward and stake auditor. Wife was seminary teacher for the 4th year and Young women’s president. These were concurrent callings. And no this wasn’t a small ward or stake, it was Doncaster ward in wantirna stake. Again, trying to be respectful and objective, and I trust this page is mature enough not to delete my post,
Unfortunately, we struggled to experience Christ in the church. To us this was because we felt that he was hard to find. I think the reason for this is because as LDS we felt we all knew him so well, and had living prophets who do the leg work if there is something important that pops us, that we didn’t need to know him any more. We could just do the manuals and home or visiting teaching, seminary, youth programs and temple service.
Which dovetails onto the next part. On our way out, before it was purely doctrine and historical factors that made our decision for us, we struggled with pushing through those things we felt interfered with our truly knowing, feeling and experiencing God, and Christ. These were the overlap of culture, practice and doctrine. We felt it had become the church of Jesus Christ of the latter day pharisees.
And the confusion and blending of each stunted our experiences. We felt God was given parameters and placed in a very defined box, and we had to come to God on those terms.
As we stepped out of our LDS narrative and context during the questioning, doubting, losing belief and then finding new belief stages, we experienced God, but on his terms. And wow.
Wow! What a powerful God he was.
At that point, you see things like efy, trek, fsy and so on, as well meaning, but constructs of man, and as much cultural as doctrinal.
And that is where issues such as role establishment, rape culture, objectification start to become very apparent. Ergo my interest in the OP and following comments.
We stayed in for a while_for_the children. Then we believed we_had_to leave for the children. That won’t make sense if a person can’t comprehend the OP, or, simplifying that, second stage feminism, or simply “rape culture”
As a father of a daughter, I felt i could not in conscience enable a cultural practice to teach her she is spiritually reliant and subservient to a male stranger in her experiences with the Holy Ghost, and that in the church she has no actual power. That she needs a male to call her name or she can’t get into heaven. Again I feel these are cultural and practice. And in time will evolve.
But again, once you hear something (ie the FAIR website, or content as per the church essays on well, all of them, or the ces letter), try as you may you can’t unhear it.
The actual resignation for the kids was because if they want to come back in, and it is their right to choose to do so, it needs to be on their own terms
And that was all not very many months ago.
With respect. B0yd
I think a lot of the modesty madness results from spiritual one-upmanship. If not wearing short-shorts is good, wearing shorts down to the knee is better. I’ve seen it in other aspects, as well. For example, when I was a teenager, it was popular for the super-righteous to demonstrate their super-righteousness by wearing their church clothes all day on Sunday, and not just to church. Fortunately, we lived on a farm so my parents did not succumb to such absurdity.
The explanations for modesty taught in church may work in Utah, but in Australia, where 99.5%of the people you see each day are non members, the don’t work.
If LDS young women are protecting the ym, they can just look at the rest of the women. My experience is that, because of this, and the more equal relationship between the sexes in life, school etc, the church culture is so alien, that to enforce it like this is just difficult to justify/explain.
If you haven’t been taught modesty, how do you decide what to wear?
If it is to work, or the beach, then apropriateness, most other times it is comfort.
Most of the women I see have not considered their effect on the opposite sex, just how comfortable they will be. Doesn’t always apply to shoes.
The Utah modesty retoric must seem even more strange, in parts of Europe, where publiv nudity is OK? You can take your family to the local SPA! and spend the evening together naked, swimming, sauna, and watersliding together. Perhaps you could bump into the bishop and his family there, all equally naked.
The sooner the church can divest it’s self of conservative Utah culture, the better, both for the members, and for missionary work.
Lonicera #58 – We had an Area President tell us all to wear our church clothes all Sunday. The purpose of such was to focus on keeping the Sabbath Day holy. In 40F (100F) temperatures in Summer, he can keep his suit and tie on. Shorts and Tee shirt for me….the sad part is that he probably thought someone was listening….
@59 Geoff – On the LDSSexuality.com website there is a vigorous discussion going on about if nudity = sexuality (“yes” in Utah and generally the US, not so much in other parts of the world). I can see some justification of limiting non-sexual nudity a bit in the US as we are all obese.
B0yd/AussieOI, I’m glad I read this post and comments because I have wondered what became of you. (I’m A Random Phrase from LDSFF.) You sound like you are doing very well.
As far as the idea that dresses and shorts to the knees being a fairly recent idea, we had that when I was about 14 and older (so about 40+ years ago). It was recommended that us girls kneel on the floor to make sure our dresses touched the floor (my mother never did such nonsensical things). Belly buttons were also taboo, as well as two-piece swimsuits.
At girls’ camp, we could wear shorts, but jeans and cut-offs (jeans with ragged edges because they had been cut shorter) were verboten.
Also, when my daughters told me that men were at camp the whole time (they felt that was creepy), I thought that was not appropriate. I mean, the girls have to be extra modest now (the T-shirt stuff, etc. – and why? Because those old men might have the hots for the young girls’ bodies?)
It is as if “the priesthood” now infiltrates young women and relief society meetings/activities to keep the females in line. When I was a teenager, the bishopric would show up on Friday night for testimony meeting at girls’ camp, then go home. Just before my time, family members were encouraged to go to girls’ camp that night, also. I don’t recall men at relief society meetings unless they had been invited by the teacher to participate.
But if the men aren’t there, who will fight the terrorists in hand-to-hand combat?? #sarcasm
Lol Hawkgrrrl. I honestly thought they were at RS meetings to protect the women until I was set straight.