not in Primary anymore

modesty: a standard for all… women

by Averyl Dietering

Satan’s minions are at it again, my dear brothers and sisters! Not only does Satan have people believing in phony New Age malarky like “social justice,” “closing the gender pay gap,” and–my least favorite–“equality,” but now the Devil himself has infiltrated the minds of the elect, encouraging some of our own ward members that the Mormon treatment of men’s and women’s bodies is unfair.
Where might I find such evidence of lustful Lucifer’s entrance into the very minds and hearts of our beloved fellow Saints?In a recent article on This Week in Mormons entitled “Where is Mormons’ Rage about Bryce Harper’s Nudity?” Geoff Openshaw questioned the so-called “hypocrisy” regarding the treatment of LDS musician Lindsey Stirling’s appearance at the 2015 Billboard Music Awards versus the reaction to LDS major leaguer Bryce Harper’s appearance on the cover of ESPN’s 2015 The Body Issue:

. . .where is the Mormon Internet’s rage over Bryce Harper? Why have I not seen scathing, Pharisaical comments galore about how much of a disappointment Bryce is because of his choice to appear nude, or how he sets an example for someone’s son and bears some responsibility for setting an example to Mormons overall, particularly youth?

As you can see, our poor Brother Openshaw seems to be confusing the world’s standards with the Lord’s standards (furthermore, he seems to be using the term “Pharisee” as an insult, which doesn’t make any gol-darn sense to me!). According to the world’s standards, we should treat Bryce Harper and Lindsey Stirling equally: if both Lindsey Stirling and Bryce Harper are active members of the Church, if both are examples to LDS youth, and if both dress immodestly in public, then Bryce Harper should have received the same rage from Mormons that Lindsey Stirling received.

What a load of Korihor-induced hootenanny! As you can see, the delicious Devil himself has weaseled into Brother Openshaw’s mind and confused him into thinking that men and women are equal. What a preposterous belief! If Brother Openshaw had even taken just 15 minutes to study Church History, he would have quickly learned that in the Lord’s Church, men and women are not equal.

Brother Openshaw travels further away from the Iron Rod when he questions whether or not the standards are the same for men and women:

Now to be clear, I am not a Mormon with deep belief in the alleged endemic patriarchy within our faith. I am, however, extremely sensitive to hypocrisy and unfairness (while fully recognizing I am guilty of both more often than not). That said, why is the onus unfairly on women to fit into a mold of what’s “appropriate” as opposed to men? Why has no one said a peep about Bryce? Are the standards not the same?

While I am very glad to hear that Brother Openshaw is not one of those crazy feminists who believes in an “alleged endemic patriarchy within our faith” (really, you’d have to be a downright Lemuel to believe that the Church is a patriarchal institution just because 0% of LDS women hold the priesthood and only 7% of our general authorities and officers are women), I am disappointed again by Brother Openshaw’s assumption that the standards for men and women should be the same. Has Brother Openshaw never read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, or The Family: A Proclamation to the World, in which time and time again, the standards for men and women are different? Of course it makes sense that we would treat Bryce Harper, a righteous, priesthood-holding hunk of man-flesh, differently than the fully-clothed Lindsey Stirling, that lustful Jezebel using flesh-toned fabric to upset our sons’ little factories.

Even the For Strength of Youth, which Brother Openshaw discusses in his article, shows the righteous, divine disparity between how Celestial Kingdom-bound saints ought to treat men’s and women’s bodies:

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.

You’ll notice that while young women are given seven different ways that their clothing could be immodest, young men are given a generic suggestions to “maintain modesty in their appearance.” And if you, like Brother Openshaw, think that this is unfair, then may I suggest you speak to your Bishop about your doubts in the words and teachings of the Lord’s anointed?

“But wait,” you may ask, “we are in total agreement that it is righteous and holy for men and women to be held to different modesty standards, but what does the For Strength of Youth mean when it says that ‘young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance’?” Well, my dear friends, I am glad to announce some new changes to the For Strength of Youth that will clarify modesty standards for men. Inspired in part by Lindsey Sterling’s Billboard Music Awards dress and Bryce Harper’s modeling for ESPN’s The Body Issue, the Brethren have made some additions (seen in italics) to the paragraph I quoted above:

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,as well as any clothing that meets all of the above requirements but looks fleshy enough that it could possibly be construed (by a very horny priest-holder) as being actually your skin and not just a flesh-colored material. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance, which basically means that you’re free to swim shirtless at YM/YW activities (even as they’re shamed for showing their stomachs in tankinis), you’re free to criticize the tiniest inch of knee that a woman is showing but then air out your own glorious leg-hinges on a daily basis, you’re free to wear phallic ties that point directly and suggestively towards your manhood, etc. In fact, like Bryce Harper, you’re also free to be photographed in the nude, as long as you are tastefully covered in dried mud or if your nakedness is obscured by a shadow, transforming your flesh into a silhouette outlining of fine buttocks that are a special witness to the success of the Word of Wisdom. But whatever you do, don’t pierce your ears because that is OBSCENE!

In closing, brothers and sisters, I hope that I have shown you how Satan can twist our minds into thinking that men and women should be treated fairly. If you are still caught in the Devil’s lies and believe that men and women should have the same standards of modesty, then I invite you to pray earnestly and look upon Harper’s cover of The Body Issue. Gaze upon that sexy son of Adam firmly grasping one of his balls… ahem, one of his baseballs, and ask yourself: Aren’t men and women inherently different, by divine decree? And if I think that men and women should be treated equally, isn’t that just Satan trying to make me believe that gender isn’t eternal? Therefore, isn’t it inherently righteous to judge Lindsey Stirling (and all women) by one standard of modesty and Bryce Harper (and all men) by another?

I bare my testimony of Harper’s bareness, and the righteousness of all Mormon double standards, ITNOJCA.

2 Responses to “modesty: a standard for all… women”

  1. JC

    I sure love living in a world where men are allowed to be shirtless on magazine covers and also at scout camp and playing skins vs. shirts basketball in the cultural hall, while Heavenly Father forbid a woman show her shoulders and ankles. Favorite thing ever.

    /end sarcasm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: