What's Wrong With This Picture?

Visualize, if you will, a Mormon family sitting together in church, preparing to receive the sacrament.
• Dad is wearing his good suit, clean and pressed dress shirt, tie, socks, and leather shoes.
• Mom is wearing a trendy top and a hoodie, denim skirt, no stockings, and heavy leather sandals.
• The older son recently returned from a mission and already with spiky hair, is wearing his suit jacket with a rumpled white shirt and tie, with khaki pants, shoes and socks.
• The younger teen-age son is wearing a wrinkled stripe shirt with the sleeve cuffs unbuttoned, tie hanging an inch from the collar, big baggy pants, and shoes untied and without socks.  Mom is rubbing his back.
• The teen daughter is wearing a T-shirt so tight you can see the lines of her bra underneath, a dirty looking brown-stained denim skirt with “whiskers,” and flip-flops.  When seated with her feet propped on the chair in front of her, the people in back of her get full view of her “butt crack” as it’s crassly called.
• The two little sisters, ages 3 and 5, are wearing nice pretty dresses, lace-edged socks, and patent leather shoes.
                                                                                                                       
The picture described above is fast becoming the stereotypical look of an American Mormon family in terms of dress and grooming.  So, just what is wrong? 
That’s easy.  A six-year-old can tell you.  Wise for his years, one youngster said, “They don’t look like they belong together.” 
They are incongruent in their visual statements—without visual harmony or unity among them.  In fact, they appear at odds with one another—in conflict.
Dad and the younger girls look dressed with care, in more refined clothing, like they’re going somewhere special—maybe church, maybe ready for a special daddy-daughter date.  Mom and the teens look like they’re headed to something extremely casual, of little importance.  They appear careless, like maybe they just forgot they were going to the House of God, when in fact, they remembered but are preoccupied and proud of looking “in fashion, laid back, cool, edgy,” purposely defiant of formerly traditional Sunday-Best dress standards—“purposely disheveled” or “organized dishevelment” as some are known to call it.  Regardless, their casual appearance contributes to a casual attitude and manner, influencing both self and others.  And because viewer attention goes to contrast, some things about their appearance draws attention to themselves and are distracting or disturbing to others, taking their attention away from the spirit of the meeting.
Why is this?  What has happened?  What’s their problem?  Is there a problem?  Both sons appear to be caught up in the casual dress downtrend.  For some dads, a son wearing baggy pants and leather shoes unlaced and without socks is a problem—or reflects a problem, possibly a value conflict and power struggle.  With clothing seen as a “safe” way to rebel, the son’s appearance is intended to trigger Dad’s ire, intended to be “in your face.”  Father and sons likely need to gain a better understanding of one another and the issues, then disarm the conflict. 
Maybe the older son never did understand the value of wearing an orderly suit of clothes as a missionary or a leader and has mistakenly sworn off them forever.  Maybe he wants to separate himself from the appearance of authority.  Maybe he wants to appear what he considers more attractive, “cool or edgy” to the girls he thinks require the look to be interested in him.  He needs to know that sloppy, spiky hair communicates insecurity and a need for attention.  He needs to know that spiky hair draws attention up and away from his face—distracts attention from his capability and credibility.  He needs to look further regarding what he thinks the girls are looking for.  Which girls demand “cool and edgy” and which do not—and which of those does he really want to saddle himself with for better or worse?
Mom and her teen-age daughter are caught up in the extremes of fashion, conformity, and looking cool.  “What are they thinking?” is the question of many.  Because “it’s the fashion” and “everybody’s wearing it,” they simply didn’t think.  Or maybe Mom thinks it makes her look younger, appealing to peers and to teens in the Sunday School class she teaches.  In either case, they need to know that the look of dirty denim with “whiskers” at the crotch is designed with purposeful intention to draw attention to itself, to the body, and to communicate defiance to higher standards of dress.  They need to know that their dress is distracting, suggestive, stimulating, and offensive to many people.  They need to decide if that’s what they really want to say to the world—if that’s really the effect they want to have on others.  Appearing irreverent, they need to choose between what’s right and what’s easy.
In addition, it’s important to know that anything about dress, grooming, or body language that is distracting from the purpose of business, education, leadership, or worship simply does not belong.  Mom and her son need to know that rubbing someone’s back in church or any social setting is distracting and disrespectful—just plain thoughtless bad manners.  Anyone sitting behind the duo in church is distracted by the moving hand in front of them and cannot focus on the service.  Complaints about this behavior are voiced throughout the church.  Save the back-rub and any other personal care activity for at-home activity only.

Raise The Bar Regarding Dress
There is nothing inherently wrong with denim, T-shirts, sweats, or flip-flops.  It’s what people have done to them that often makes them wrong choices for many places.  It’s what they’ve come to symbolize to self and others.  It’s how they influence the thoughts, feelings, and actions or behavior of both self and others.  In reading the following content, keep in mind the following admonition:

Denim is a durable, tough, utilitarian fabric.  It was brought to America from deNeims, France to clothe the men working in the California gold mines.  Denim overalls and pants could stand up to the roughness of their work and lives.  Durable denim is in total harmony with physical labor and play.  In focus groups, teens admit the reason they love to wear jeans to school is because they are “all ready to play.”  And so, in these latter days, denim symbolizes rough outdoor work or play, requiring durable fabric.  
Since the 1950s, denim has also symbolized defiance, rebellion, and laid-back laziness—“just hangin’ out.”  What denim communicates is therefore in conflict with more refined occasions where reverence and respect are needed—such as in sacrament meeting, attending the temple, weddings, baptisms, funerals, and refined cultural occasions.  Denim stands out in visual conflict with the dress shirt and slacks or suit requested to be worn by husbands, sons, and brothers in sacred settings. 
“Dirty denim” is doubly distracting and devilish because it features brown stain intended by the manufacturer to communicate filth, and “whiskers” purposely positioned at the crotch, intended by vile designers to be associated with female anatomy.  Within the pop-culture, it is readily known that these looks are intended to offend parents, teachers, church leaders, and others in authority, stating, “I can be as filthy and as sexual as I want to be and you can’t stop me.” 
Granted, if denim is all that is available, if denim were the only choice, then denim is what we’d wear.  Of course, anyone attending sacrament meeting, not yet aware of these communications, is absolutely to be accepted.  It is later, when appropriate, a higher standard of dress can be thoughtfully taught.  It is when more refined fabrics are available, then having a choice makes the difference.  Intent becomes the overriding decision maker.  If the intent in choosing to wear denim to refined locations and occasions is due to the desire to look trendy, cool, edgy, defiant, or rebellious, then the decision is immodest and prideful.  If the intent is to be reverent, respectful, or refined, then we will choose a garment of a more refined fabric and construction, in harmony with the refined location and occasion. 

T-shirts were originally worn as an undergarment—a modesty garment.  With the casualization of America over recent decades, we have come to accept wearing this undergarment on the outside.  Made of soft, lightweight knit fabric, T-shirts are generally comfortable and communicate a casual, relaxed manner and attitude.  The current pop-fashion trend for girls features a white T-shirt hanging below a shorter top, intended to appear more like underwear sloppily exposed. 
If you want the pop-fashion look, or a longer undershirt for the purpose of modesty, opt instead for a colored tee that appears less like underwear.  Light-colored tees are relatively transparent.  Buy into thicker tees.  Made without ease in the fit or with spandex in the fabric, T-shirts too often reveal body curvatures, immodestly distracting attention to the body. 
One “modest” T-shirt company instructs the buyer to get a smaller size to get a tighter fit.  Another, appropriately called “Undertease,” is either ignorant or arrogant about the message they are sending with the “sexy coverage” they advertise.  Even their sizing is purposely provocative, described in company literature as “Hotie, Sexy, Sensuous, and Voluptuous.”  Contrary to their argument, women don’t need to advertise sexual availability to feel and appear pretty, lovely, beautiful, even gorgeous.  Allow me to recommend “Shade,” and other LDS owned long shirt companies with a selection of pretty fashion colors to wear as an underlayer for the purpose of modesty.  Again, choose a more refined knit in a fashion color, not white, and the look is less of underwear left hanging out.
Pictures and print of choice are often applied to the front and/or back of T-shirts, increasing attention to themselves and communicating personal values, attitudes, and interests.  In these latter days, the message of pictures and print are too often crude or rude.  Choose carefully, and then only if that is where you want all attention to go.
Sweat-shirts, -pants, and -jackets communicate active sports and casual play.  Both sweats and tees tend to fade and lose their shape after a few washings, quickly looking sloppy for occasions other than active sports.  The same points regarding choice and intent that apply to denim also apply to the wearing of T-shirts and sweats.  When our intent is to be reverent, respectful, or refined, then we will choose a more refined fabric and shirt style, in harmony with the location and the occasion.

A camisole is another modesty garment obviously an undergarment—a piece of lingerie we see girls and women wearing on the outside as though it were a blouse, or layered over a T-shirt as though that made it modest.  Made of cotton or nylon and trimmed top and bottom with nylon lace, it’s the “hot body” look in trendy tops.  And no question about it, the trendy cami looks just like women’s lingerie, especially those with the metal adjuster on the strap, purposely identical to that used on a slip or bra-strap.
Men and boys rightly recognize the cami as women’s underwear, described in fashion ads as “playfully sensual.”  As the ads proclaim, “They’re loaded with evocative imagery.”  They stimulate thoughts of intimate and sexual behavior, thoughts that wouldn’t have otherwise entered the mind. 
Some LDS women interviewed are disturbed by girls and women dressed in cutesy, lacy camis expecting to be treated as intelligent and capable adults when visibly at odds with their obvious desire to attract a man.  “The exposed cami puts us out there as sex objects.”  Other women are torn between their need to appear in fashion and their sense of modesty and decency.  Some are confused by fashionistas promoting the camisole as outerwear on shaky grounds “that it’s better than showing skin,” and because “they are so-o-o cute.”
Cute or not, no matter how many T-shirts women wear underneath a cami, it’s still underwear and it’s still distracting and provocative.  If it’s truly a modest or mannerly appearance that’s intended, simply wear the cami under a shirt or blouse and fully tucked in, exactly as it was originally intended.

Rubber flip-flops were originally created and worn as public shower shoes, pool or beach shoes.  The wearer simply appears undressed.  Worn with day, evening, or wedding clothes, flip-flops communicate that the wearer didn’t have time to dress, didn’t make time to dress, didn’t care to get dressed, and/or didn’t care about refinement and respect for the people, place, or occasion.  The characteristic “shuffle-slop, shuffle-slop” sound that flip-flops make when walking is distracting—hence their name, flip-flops.  Walking in flip-flops, posture is generally relaxed to the point of a tired-looking slump or slouch.  Regardless, choice and intent again make the difference between appropriate, sloppy, and/or prideful.  When our intent is to be reverent, respectful, or refined, then we will choose a more refined footwear, in harmony with the location and occasion.

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and recognizing our role and responsibility as children of God, the choice to wear flip-flops, sweats, t-shirts, and denim to the house of the Lord and to other refined occasions is the way of the world.  It’s the worldly way of showing our intent to appear trendy, cool, edgy—the worldly way of showing our defiance and rebellion against established standards of harmony, behavior, reverence, and respect. 

Some people argue that “God looks not on the outside but the inside.”  That’s exactly right, and it’s the inside that determines our values, attitudes, and choices in dress and grooming.  When we have a choice, what’s on the outside reflects exactly what’s on the inside. 

Judith Rasband is a member of the Heatheridge 1st ward, Heatheridge Stake, in Orem, Utah where she teaches Gospel Doctrine.  She is Director of the Conselle Institute of Image Management.