And by the way, to return back a bit to the topic of breastfeeding… I do breastfeed, and I do it in public – even in Sacrament Meeting. And I’ve had pics taken while breastfeeding. I don’t know everybody’s reasoning, but I think one reason to post pics of yourself is to help normalize breastfeeding in public. We lactivists are sad that so many people think breastfeeding is not normal, and we hope that seeing it more often will help normalize it. Jesus was breastfed. And I doubt Mary went into a bathroom stall to feed him.

It can be impossible, sometimes, to see past our cultural upbringing. This may sound argumentative, but I don’t mean it to be. I would like to know if you can show me a quote from a Church authority that says “Kids should not see parents naked past a certain age.” I don’t want a general quote on modesty from which you then draw conclusions, I want a solid quote.

I am aware that you may respond to this with an argument such as Pres. Hinckley’s when he said “The Word of Wisdom does not specifically warn against the danger of diving head first into an empty swimming pool…”. There is common sense, of course. But there is also taking clear church teaching on modesty, mixing it with cultural and tradition, and then coming up with our own perceived idea of right and wrong.

For example: The Church teaches us that it is wrong to wear clothing which is too revealing. (Nobody disputes this, I hope.) As a matter of tradition, most American parents don’t let their kids see them naked. Add these two together, and we might come up with: “The church teaches that it is wrong for parents to let their kids see them naked.”

If I were a lawyer well versed in Latin and Logic, I could maybe come up with a name for this kind of faulty argument, but the best I can do is call it “fuzzy math”.

If this is A PERSONAL belief, that of course if just fine. Nobody should knock you for it. But it becomes dangerous when we start taking our own conclusions, believing them to be hard-and-fast truths, and then judging others against them. That’s just wrong.

As for your question, “when did we use Europe as a benchmark of morality?” I am not talking about Europe in general. They have their good sides and bad sides just as we do. I am talking only about the good, honest, God-fearing, hard working, Temple Recommend holding members of the branch in which I served. It seems to me that you are passing judgment on them, but I hope I am wrong.

You mentioned, “I suspect if church officials knew that endowed members were going without clothing at the beach, they would be concerned.” Well, my junior comp at the time was so shocked and upset by it that he called the Mission President as soon as we got home. He just chuckled and said, “Thanks for your concern Elder, and welcome to France.”

It can be impossible, sometimes, to see past our cultural upbringing.

“To be honest, I think there is quite a bit of rationalizing going on here.”

Paul said to “prove all things” and “hold fast to that which is good.” We shouldn’t be afraid to question anything, especially in a Church which teaches that the more light and knowledge we attain to in this life, the better for us in the eternities. Principles that are true will stand the scrutiny. Those that aren’t, won’t. Call it rationalizing if you want. I call it honest inquiry to see what’s true doctrine and what’s just cultural preference subject to individual decision.

“To think that the “Strength of Youth” pamphlet does not have a dress code in mind when discussing modesty is a bit of a stretch given how Dances are monitored, for example.”

Non sequitur that mistakes a few trees for the forest. Of course the principle of modesty can cover how one dresses. The fact that church dances are monitored for dress code compliance means that in the context and circumstances of a Church dance, certain types of dress are modest and other types aren’t. But that doesn’t change the overarching principle that modesty is not ultimately just about what one wears and when.

“If the church says no exposed bellys on girls, do you really think that exposing more is OK?”

Reductio ad absurdam. Again, depends on context and circumstances. “The Church” has said a lot of things over time that have proven to be ill-advised. Whether or not your example is one, we do have a responsibility to think for ourselves.

“No one here, certainly not me, is saying that the exposed body is shameful or that we need to be extra modest around the same sex. But it does seem that running around our homes in various stages of undress in front of our children is a bit over the top. Not making it evil, but not flaunting it either.”

A purely personal and cultural preference. That’s fine, it is individual choice. As long as others who reach different conclusions aren’t judged negatively for doing so. BTW, I have noticed a consistent pattern of phrases like “running around the house” or “parading around the house” from those who would never do such a thing themselves. The opprobrious subtext is pretty clear, actually. And as a side note, the Victorian prudishness that Bryan talks about seems to be increasing in the Church even on the same sex side. I heard a stake president scold some young men for being “immodest” just because they played basketball without shirts. The MTC is removing open showers and replacing them with private stalls. The trend seems pretty clear there too.

“As I stated either, when did we use Europe as a benchmark of morality? I suspect if church officials knew that endowed members were going without clothing at the beach, they would be concerned.”

Non sequitur. We are not talking about morality. You illustrate the point perfectly, Jeff, that many Church members simply can’t separate the concept of nudity from sex/morality/immorality. But obviously it can be done. In Bryan’s story, church officials were not only aware that endowed members were going without clothing at the beach, they were right there with them, saw it happen, and didn’t give it a second thought. Endowed members are allowed to take their garments off sometimes.

“Note that the Church itself has defined modesty as an attitude, not a dress code. Those who conclude that this standard still requires being dressed and mostly covered up at all times may do so not because the definition actually requires it (it doesn’t), but because they may not be able to think of the uncovered body in anything but shameful or sexual terms themselves.”

If the church says no exposed bellys on girls, do you really think that exposing more is OK?

No one here, certainly not me, is saying that the exposed body is shameful or that we need to be extra modest around the same sex. But it does seem that running around our homes in various stages of undress in front of our children is a bit over the top. Not making it evil, but not flaunting it either.

As I stated either, when did we use Europe as a benchmark of morality? I suspect if church officials knew that endowed members were going without clothing at the beach, they would be concerned.

Speaking of embarrassing nudity stories that can accompany openness (and its unintended consequences), a Catholic friend shared the following with me:

When his daughter was about 3 or 4, he came out of the shower not realizing she was standing there. When he turned around, she was staring directly at him and asked, “Daddy, what is that?” Wanting to be totally open with her, he said, “That is my penis” – and promptly forgot about it.

The next Sunday, while he was talking with a group of other fathers at his Catholic Church, this daughter walked up to him and said, “Daddy, will you show me your penis again?”

Sometimes, openness has unintended consequences, and he is grateful to this day that there wasn’t a social worker standing anywhere near him at the time.

I have to agree with you that shaming kids over their nudity is very harmful. But I can also say that I didn’t experience any of that. We just covered up. I considered it more of a courtesy (of course that implies “no one wants to look at that!”). With our own kids we have more of a sense of humor about accidental nudity, and that seems fairly healthy to me. Someone might say “Boom-chica-wow-wow” if you forgot to bring your clothes in when you took a shower, or something like that. But we would just laugh it off.

Jeff #79: You make a good point: “The latent negative effect may not be known for many years.” I can say with certainty that the approach my parents took towards the human body, which is also the approach I see most Christian / North American parents take, had profound negative effects on me. We never talked about it. We most certainly never let it be seen. Anything related to it’s parts or functions were taboo and off limits. We all locked our bedroom doors to change and never, ever shared the bathroom. One the rare occasions when I did commit the major sin of running from the bathroom to my bedroom naked because I forgot a towel (age ~nine) I was scolded soundly.

The result is that I was raised with some major hangup’s about bodies, and epically about sex. I struggled mightily as a teen with immorality, and only via a series of miracles and very loving Bishops did I somehow manage to maintain my virginity until the night of my honeymoon. This problem is, sadly, becoming the norm even for LDS youth, and the reaction I see from leaders and parents is more and more heavy-handedness towards the attitude of “How can hide the human body even MORE from our kids? The current level is not working.”

I want better for my kids. I know… the approach my wife and I take seems radical to many. But I am convinced this is due to cultural upbringing. I served a mission in Europe and was amazed at the stark contrast with how they view their bodies. One of the branches I served in was on the coast, and on P-Day they held a branch beach party. Many of the females, including the Branch President’s wife and daughter went topless. None of the kids under the age on ten wore anything at all. Can you imagine this happening in a U.S. ward? It’s unthinkable. But it was only us four American Elders who found it unusual.

The idea of an open-door family is not only not-shocking to LDS families in Europe, it’s pretty much the norm. (Can’t speak for all of them, of course, but I had conversations with enough to say this with comfort.)

GBSmith #85: I have never been to a “naturist facility” as you describe, but so long as there was no overt sexual behavior going on, I don’t think I would be opposed to it.

Great conversation!

We agree and disagree in part.

I agree with you that modesty is a gospel principle. Absolutely right. The question is how we define modesty.

In fact modesty is entirely a cultural construct. The “modest” one piece swimsuit that any member of the current General Young Women’s Presidency would approve and wear themselves today would have gotten its wearer arrested for public indecency 125 years ago, when “modest” women at the beach wore a big billowy dress that covered everything from neck to wrists to ankles. This confirms that there can never be a single standard of “modesty” but that it will fluctuate wildly according to time, place and circumstances.

Members of the Church commonly assume that because God gave Adam & Eve clothes in the Garden, that therefore means that modesty consists in wearing clothes. But as shown above, we have to ask about details. What is “modest” where and when? It varies widely and wildly. “Garment-standard” coverage”? Then why the exceptions that the Church itself approves, and why has the garment itself changed shape and coverage so much? And remember that it was Satan who suggested to the couple that there was something shameful or wrong in their being naked, it wasn’t God, who clearly had no problem with it. Some may say “well, that’s because they were husband and wife and nobody else was around.” But that is itself purely a cultural construct and personal projection; the Scriptures themselves say nothing like that.

If you look to the Church for a definition of “modesty” you probably can’t do better than the current For The Strength of Youth pamphlet, which defines it as “an attitude of humility and decency in dress, grooming, language and behavior. If you are modest, you do not draw undue attention to yourself. Instead, you seek to glorify God in your body and in your spirit.” Note that the Church itself has defined modesty as an attitude, not a dress code. Those who conclude that this standard still requires being dressed and mostly covered up at all times may do so not because the definition actually requires it (it doesn’t), but because they may not be able to think of the uncovered body in anything but shameful or sexual terms themselves. And remember who was the author of that idea. Again, we are forced to return to attitude and context as determinative. GBSmith’s post just above confirms that in fact it may be entirely possible to be completely without clothes and yet be completely modest, and that flagrant immodesty with clothing on is rampant. Attitude is everything.

“The Principle of Modesty

Some Latter-day Saints may feel that modesty is a tradition of the Church or that it has evolved from conservative, puritanical behavior. Modesty is not just cultural. Modesty is a gospel principle that applies to people of all cultures and ages. In fact, modesty is fundamental to being worthy of the Spirit. To be modest is to be humble, and being humble invites the Spirit to be with us.

Of course, modesty is not new. It was taught to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. “Unto Adam … and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21; see also Moses 4:27). Like Adam and Eve, we have been taught that our bodies are formed in the likeness of God and are therefore sacred.” Robert D. Hales, “Modesty: Reverence for the Lord,” Ensign, Aug 2008, 34–39

“Let’s go to Bloomies!” Good one, made me laugh!

But the man boobs and gays, well…..I’ll trust what Nick says about it.

Thanks for the compliment which you then take back, I guess, as related to this topic. All I am saying is that studies do not form the basis of good parenting. Good judgment and the adherence to gospel principles to me is a much better guide. I just heard a report on TV that coffee is good for you. The results of a study. That is not going to make me go out and drink it. Just as the results of a study would not inspire me to appear nude in front of my children.

There are just as many example for things parents subjected their children to “for their own good” which ultimately had disastrous results. Using studies defend ourselves is a weak arguments since studies often conflict in their results and conclusion.

To the 3rd point, this probably stems from the difference if your parents are Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell or Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold. “The horror! The horror!” as Col. Kurtz might say.

Thanks for the reply. I’ll respond to your three points.

1) guilt associated with sexual attraction to a parent

Hmm. Interesting. There are some popular authorities on child-care (ie: Dr. Spock, Ann Landers, Dear Abby) who will preach that it’s dangerous for children to see others naked, especially as the kids get older. I suspect that what they are dishing out is old and re-hashed cultural tradition, but not well-researched facts. Real, actual research actually shows the opposite. The small number of studies that exist state children reared in an atmosphere containing family social nudity may actually benefit. (I’ll cite sources in a bit…)

The thinking you expressed in your first point is based, IMO, on the assumption that there is an inherent / unbreakable association with the naked human body and sexual attraction. In fact, it is *exactly* this association we would like to UN-teach, or, I should say, NOT teach in the first place. Most of us grow up in a home where nakedness, in all of its forms, is hidden and off limits. (Nakedness is bad. Sex is bad before marriage. Sex done naked. Naked = sex.) Even casual nudity such as when changing cloths is taboo or taking a bath becomes taboo after the age of nine or ten (maybe even sooner). Kids who grow up this way become convinced that nudity and sex are inseparable, and that when, for example, a boy sees a girl naked, he simply can not avoid having sexual thoughts about her. (I speak from experience, having grown up this way.)

I propose that this is association (nude = sexual) is learned and not an inherent, unbreakable association. Our goal is to help our kids understand that the human body is a beautiful, sacred creation of God, but that they don’t HAVE to become horny (being crass to make a point) every time they see a body sans clothing.

The premises of your first point is built upon the false foundation that nudity and sexual desire are inseparable. Without that association, why would there be guilt?

2) inferiority complex when comparing their budding bodies with full grown versions

This would only happen without open dialog. If parents will takes the time to teach their children why their body is different then an adult body, and about the changes they will experience when they hit puberty then this is a mute point. For most adolescents, puberty is embarrassing, awkward, and even shameful, but it does not need to be.

Consider these two cases:

Friend “A” has a son who recently hit puberty. This poor kid was scared to death to shave for the first time because this would be admitting to the entire world that his body was changing in “those” places, so instead he waited until his 13 year old mustache and beard was a disgraceful embarrassment and his parents angrily forced him to shave. His father confided in me that after shaving, his son was scared to go to school because “people would know.” I’ll also confide in you that this friend of mine and his wife are two of the most body-phobic people I’ve ever met. On a visit to their home years ago, this same son, then about eight, came out his bedroom without a shirt on and was told in raised voices to get back in his room and not come out until he was modest.

Friend “B”, who subscribes to an open door policy, has explained in depth to his children the changes a person goes through at puberty, and has even promised a party when each of them start to develop. They are looking forward to it!

3) disgust when viewing the adult body and self-rejection or desire not to grow up (with things like anorexia being associated)

I’d be really curious to know where this idea is coming from. I’ve certainly never heard anything like it… in fact I have seen research that suggests the exact opposite.

In 1995, UCLA psychology professor Paul Okami published a review of existing clinical and empirical studies of childhood exposure to parental nudity. He found no evidence that parental nudity in front of children was abusive to the kids. He cited another study which concluded that children from nudist households had a more positive body self-concept than the non-nudist children, and another which concluded that childhood experiences with exposure to nudity were not adversely related to adult sexual functioning or adjustment, in fact, there was some support for the view that it had a positive impact in that regard, particularly for boys.
He concluded that “no empirical evidence links such experiences with subsequent psychological harm”.

In ’98, Okami published the results of his own 18 year study on early childhood exposure to parental nudity that followed 200 boys and girls from birth to age 17-18. Results: “Consistent with the cross-sectional retrospective literature (and with our expectations), . . . exposure to parental nudity was associated with positive, rather than negative, sexual experiences in adolescence, and with reduced sexual experience overall. Boys exposed to parental nudity were less likely to have engaged in theft in adolescence or to have used illegal drugs.

Anywhoo… I could go on. I’ve studied the issue a lot and I feel confident my wife and I are doing the right things for our kids. I’ve said enough! I hope at least I’ve given you something to think about.

Thanks again, Hawkgrrl.

@Jeff #71: LOL. Actually, no. I’m daring you to read the Web site.

“Your choice, of course, but there are more things in heaven and earth, Jeff, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.”

Please, you just gotta be playing with me here? I sure hope so.