What is your take on Elder Callister’s talk in the March Ensign?
Question
Dear Gramps,
I have been reading a lot of responses–some pro and some con– to Elder Callister’s article in the March Ensign. Some things came out of the objections that I had not considered. If you are plugged into the ongoing conversation, I would love to get your take.
Kimberly
Answer
Kimberly,
The objections that have been expressed have not been about teaching modesty, but rather about the way we teach modesty. It is controversial to teach modesty as pertaining largely to how a woman’s dress is responsible for the thoughts of men, because this not only removes responsibility from men for their thoughts and actions, but also leads women to blame themselves when they are victims of heinous acts. Consider a 12 year old girl who has many trusted associations with men in her life. All too often, one of these men, acting on pure, wanton evil violates that trust and abuses her, sometimes for years. A culture that would even allow for her to ask the question, “What did I do to bring this on?” is at best, dysfunctional and at worst, evil. We must not contribute to the notion that the perpetrator is the victim and vice versa, yet that is the result of our current modest lesson delivery and content.
Like many other non-gospel concepts that have crept into the culture, teaching that modesty is primarily about a woman’s attempts to put thoughts in a man’s head through her dress is destructive. When we teach that the girl is at fault for a man’s thoughts, rather than the man for thinking them, we have taken away one of the greatest gifts we have been given, our agency, and taken away accountability from the man to control his thoughts and actions.
Elder Holland addressed this very thing when he said,
“I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, ‘I will not do that thing?’ No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, ‘He just can’t help himself. His glands have complete control over his life–his mind, his will, his entire future.’… I refuse to buy some young man’s feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.”
Christ teaches in Matthew 18:8-9 that “if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:” He does not say to approach that which offends you and to tell them to cover up. He asks us to take responsibility to cast sin far from us, even if it comes at great cost.
A more effective way to teach modesty is to present it in a way that helps us respect our bodies and hold them sacred. We have been told, “Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of God and ye are not your own?” (1 Cor. 6:19). We do not cover up our bodies because we are ashamed of them, rather we cover them out of respect for the sacredness of our bodies as gifts of God and for our bodies’ importance to our life’s work. This idea of bodies as temples of God should then extend to how we teach chastity. We would not violate a temple of God, and should treat others and their bodies with the same respect and sacredness.
When we make modesty largely about hemlines, we miss the spirit of the law. Modesty should be grounded in our knowledge of a loving Father, whom we wish to respect and worship with humility and a willingness to sacrifice. Though we largely talk about modesty in terms of a woman’s dress, it is a much more encompassing principle than that. We send a mixed message when we criticize a person for her dress, but praise another for his tailored suit, fancy car, and excessively large house.
Modesty is an important principle that should be taught, but it should be taught in a way that empowers and inspires. Like all things in the gospel, it should point to Christ. Our teaching needs to reflect a proper understanding of agency, accountability, atonement, love, bodies, temples, sacrifice and spirit. Instead of teaching that the body is something sinful, or something to be ashamed of, we should embrace it as a sacred gift from God and treat it accordingly.
Said another way, we can and should do far better than to emulate the societal dysfunction around us which objectifies women, cheapens sex, confuses beauty, reduces bodies to biological functions, implies that men are powerless animals who have no control, and where we confuse victim and perpetrator by launching blame in the wrong direction. Modesty is much more than fashion. It is an expression of the Christ-like attribute of humility that can be shown in all we do and say. Without this understanding, we will gravitate to the world’s paradigms and perpetuate the problem.
Gramps
As I’ve read, and reread that part of Elder Callister’s talk, I honestly don’t understand what the problem is. When what he says is put into context, it makes perfect sense to me. He wasn’t saying that women are responsible for what goes on in the minds of men. He was saying that when women dress immodestly “it may prompt improper thoughts, even in the mind of a young man who is striving to be pure.” Which is true, as this 22 year old can attest. My opinion is that maybe some are focusing on his very direct and to-the-point statements outside of the context in which they were presented. Plus nothing he said rang false, inappropriate, or uninspired to me. Also, that section of the talk was not even about the principle of modesty. That section was under the sub-heading of “Tentacles of the adversary” in which Elder Callister was describing different ways that Satan seeks to ensnare us. It was talking about immodest dress and the potential spiritual dangers that it brings with it, not the principles of how our bodies are temples, or about how modesty is part of living in such a way that we can have the Spirit to be with us. What he said fits just fine to me.
I have to disagree with you. It is the responsibility of both men and women. His talk put more of responsibility on women. And insinuated that men cannot control themselves. Everyone knows what he was trying to say, he just did not articulate his message well. He is human after all and all of us make mistakes in the way we present our message. And just because the message was fine with you, it was not fine with many of the membership, including myself.
Thank you so much for this post! I’ve read many article discussing Elder Callister’s talk, many of them very thought-provoking, but this is the one that resonates with me the most.
As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I am very sensitive to talks about morality and the way they unwittingly promote shame. This is an important issue because there are so many survivors of sexual assault and abuse (the numbers are much higher than breast cancer and everyone knows someone who has had breast cancer, right?)
Your thoughts and suggestions were right on. Thank you so much for this thoughtful post. It really is a balm to my scarred heart.
Dear Leslie,
Thank you so much for your comment and insight. My heart goes out to you and to all who have gone through similar experiences. You are right that many do not even realize the impact that is made when modesty is taught in this way: “they unwittingly promote shame.” I hope that all of the responses to this way of teaching modesty will help more people to realize the impact of their words, and that there is a more Christ-centered way to approach this topic that will heal hearts and ease the needless suffering that many feel.
Gramps
Thank you!
This entire episode really saddens me. When did it become ok the openly call out and correct our leaders beyond the boundaries of our own stewardships and call it virtue? It is by definition stiffneckedness, hardheartedness, and seeking after false teachers to tell us what we want to hear rather than what we need to hear. The more we do this, the more silent the prophets will become as we continue to lose line upon in the modern church rather than gain it.
Personally I find this kind of open rebellion and haughtiness among the saints very disheartening. Everywhere the prophet or leadership speaks on one item or another we now find those who espouse membership in the Lords church to stand at the ready to oppose it.
TBC
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” Brigham Young
Found here: https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=2&topic=quotes
This doesn’t mean the Lords anointed will lead us astray. Nor that we will be blessed for stepping outside our stewardships.
“I am more afraid …that they will not inquire for themselves of God…”
We are to gain our own conviction of Gods word as given through his servants,as nephi did so we can choose to obey with conviction and the trow closer to God. Rather than question everything with only our own understanding like laman and lemuel or simply follow blindly like sam did. We are to model the valiance of nephi.
Even when Lehi was murmuring, because he was not perfect, nephi did not call him out or stand against his father or counsel him to teach things in a different way to or step up to the plate. He submitted to his father and requested of his father something which was within his fathers stewardship. Nephi did not step out of his stewardship. This blessed Lehi to repent and straighten up on his own.
No man is infallible. The fact that we are all human, means that we all make mistakes. I find your comments James G to be on the offensive side. Blind obedience does not profit anyone. I thought this was an outstanding example of how a subject can be navigated in a better way.
8 But behold, the righteous that hearken unto the words of the prophets, and destroy them not, but look forward unto Christ with steadfastness for the signs which are given, notwithstanding all persecution–behold, they are they which shall not perish. (2 Nephi 26)
“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” (Pres Brigham Young – Journal of Discourses, vol. 9:289)
I find it offensive that you find the words of the Lord offensive but I guess thatA my problem tom overcome. Personally I agree with Nephi and Pres young over wolves in Sheeps clothing that would thrust their hands forth to steady the ark of God and teach that which is offensive to God as if it’s his word when not most asseedly is not.
Or you can take it from elder packer too in the April 1983 conf in relation to the wolves that accuse the pure in heart of blind obedience.
“Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see. The best control, I repeat, is self-control. (Agency and Control boyd k Packer April 1983)
This talk has nothing to do with sexual abuse. What he said about immodest dress and its affects on men is absolutely true. It needs to be said and women of all ages need to be aware of it. Are you saying here that because Satan will twist the truth to get people to feel unduly guilty for the acts of others that we avoid teaching important principles? What he said needs to be emphasized very plainly to women in our day. Just because you don’t like it or just because some will take it too far to cause false guilt does not change the fact that it is absolutely true. What he said is reality whether you like it or not.
I have read the talk by Elder Callister, its forthright as we’ve come to expect from him. The truth is, we need more forthrightness and less beating around the bush. We need to get over ourselves and accept the counsel that come from the brethren. Sure sometimes it may seem blunt, and I myself have wondered if they could not have said something with a little more ‘tact’. But that’s my judgement on what I consider tactful. I don’t think Elder Callister was implying anything other than: sometimes the acts we do can provoke reactions in others and therefore let’s try not to provoke in a negative way. I think we spend too much time being offended because of perceived insensitivity to our plights. We say to our selves, ‘he doesn’t have a clue what I am going through’. Well he said what he said and the message is dress modestly, move on to the next principle he’s teaching.
Consider President Lee’s counsel: “There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against you;” (Teachings of Presidents of The Church: Harold B. Lee Chapter
9: Heeding the True Messenger Of Jesus Christ)
Sure the brethren aren’t perfect but we can gain a testimony for ourselves to be sure if the principle being taught is true or not.
What sounded weird to me was Gramps’ respsonse. It sounded like Gramps was actually saying that Elder Callister was a probably insensitive sounding and could have better explained the principle by explaining it the way Gramps suggests. Which if that’s what Gramps is saying that is not how Gramps normally reacts to the counsel from our leaders. At least that’s my opinion from reading other answers here. So I have decided I don’t understant Gramps’s response. .
I agree totally on all of that, especially that last part.
Kind of a fine line, we want members of the opposite sex to find us attractive, particularly when we are young and looking for a partner to share love and life with in this life and the next. The standard of what is modest and what is not can be very subjective as we are all individual, some of us my be attracted legs, lips etc,so blaming any one for our own impure thoughts is tough, because when we look at a member of the opposite sex when single even if they are covered wrist to ankle impure thoughts are biologically driven, we cannot control those, we can control is what we do with them, if we push them out of our mind as quickly as they arrive and do not act on them I think there is no problem. To blame a woman with a nicely fiting outfit for putting thoughts of attraction into our heads while giving men a pass is in my opinion unfair. We all have the thoughts when looking for a spouse, but we can control dwelling on it and acting on it.
The responsibility lies with both men and women but once a women chooses to follow the prophets council on dressing modesty with pure intent and exactness. The rest of the responsibility then falls entirely to the man to control himself. No one would agree that a woman choosing to walk naked among construction sites would play no part in possible negative outcomes. Dressing counter to the prophets standards of modesty is just an extension of what should be obvious. But once obedience is a woman’s quest the burden of blame falls entirely on the male if he willfully shooters to act on thoughts he was responsible to eject from his kind before they ever found voice in his actions.
Sorry Gramps you got this one wrong. Our Church leaders are not infallible but Elder Callister is spot on here. “Immodest dress may cause improper thoughts in men.” Sorry but that cannot be disputed. It is a fact that men are visually stimulated and all he is saying is that “it may cause improper thoughts”, emphasis on may. And by saying it ‘can’ cause improper thoughts does in no way take away men’s responsibility for abusing somebody or their free agency. Callister is not saying that in any way, shape or form. It is ridiculous to assume otherwise. And at the very least he should be given the benefit of the doubt that that is not what he meant.
Can I just say as one who personally knows Brother Callister that he is the last person who would ever blame a woman for the bad actions or inappropriate thoughts of others. I have known him to be a personal champion and supporter of women. Being a female working under him as a missionary, I have never met anyone else who was so supportive of me and believed in my abilities more than I did, helping me become a better person than I was before. I have seen him be so kind and understanding towards me when I had to speak of him of my own personal weaknesses and I’m am a personal witness of his great fatherly love he had for us all, but especially for the sisters who served under him. When Elder Callister stated that quote about modesty, it was not to put the blame on the women for the thoughts of the men, but exactly as he stated, that the way we dress may put inappropriate thoughts in the heads of others. It doesn’t mean we are to blame for the actions of others, but that for ourselves modesty should be a virtue we should want to strive for.