The Human Body
I have a question on my mind. Maybe it's because of my two oldest daughters who are at the age where they want to know all about themselves. Maybe it's because I just got hired to shoot the Miss Utah USA and Miss Utah Teen USA pageant this weekend. Possibly it's due to the controversial exhibit at the Leonardo. Most likely it's because I'm working on a Gospel Essentials lesson about the law of chastity. But the question is this: what is the appropriate way to treat the human body in our public discourse, in our art, and in our marriage and family interactions?
There seems to be a need for separation in these things, but this is the quotation that is the most challenging to me. From Gospel Principles, chapter 39:
"Satan attacks the standards of modesty. He wants us to believe that because the human body is beautiful, it should be seen and appreciated. Our Heavenly Father wants us to keep our bodies covered so that we do not put improper thoughts into the minds of others" (emphasis added).
I'm not trying to contradict church doctrine, and I realize this book is only an introduction to it - milk, as it were - but it seems reductive to me to call the italicized portion of the quotation above strictly satanic, and that's what troubles me. Of course, I'm not for flaunting the body, either. But what are the implications of this for art? What about for marriage relationships? I know very few people who I think would call certain works of Michaelangelo's ungodly, but they do show a lot of skin. What role does intent play in all of this?
Can we use this concept when teaching modesty to our children without creating a sense of shame about their bodies? Is shame proper in a fallen world, given Adam's and Eve's first experience with it? Is mortality the time to transcend this shame, or does that come later on, in a more pure environment?
You understand, I'm not talking about wanting to go around dressed immodestly, but, as the manual in question also says, "Satan’s plan is to deceive as many of us as he can to prevent us from returning to live with our Heavenly Father. One of the most damaging things he can do is entice us to break the law of chastity. He is cunning and powerful. He would like us to believe it is no sin to break this law. Many people have been deceived" (emphasis added).
Are we as Latter-day Saints to retreat into our homes and wait for all the immodestly dressed people to pass? Are we to shun activities like swimming because of the immoral clothing of many who participate in them? Are we to imagine everyone we see dressed in a large cardboard box that conceals not only their skin, but their shape as well? We have a world that bares it all for many reasons - medicine, art, and pornography to name a few - and hides it for very few. We have a Mormon culture that closes its eyes at the sight of a living woman's shoulder, but feels compelled to admire as "great" the nearly-naked creations of master artists of the past. Of course, any art created in our day along the same lines is often considered mere pornography. Because I'm asking for your help, I'm not defending or rejecting any of this. I'm just pointing it out as I see it, and I see it to be contradictory. Not paradoxical, which would make me love it, but simply inconsistent, which tempts me to call it hypocritical.
The point is that our bodies are gifts from God. They are beautiful. They are essential to fullness of joy. We will have them for eternity. What good are they if they must be hidden from our eyes and our thoughts? I know some of you will think that I just answered my question and tell me all about husbands and wives, but I think it goes beyond that. I'm not talking about sex. Please don't think that I'm saying that clothing is bad, either. We need to be large minded on this issue. We need to reach upward intellectually and spiritually. I'm talking about how to appropriately view our own bodies and those of others (all properly clothed) to whom we may - or may not - be married, and I need your thoughts.
There seems to be a need for separation in these things, but this is the quotation that is the most challenging to me. From Gospel Principles, chapter 39:
"Satan attacks the standards of modesty. He wants us to believe that because the human body is beautiful, it should be seen and appreciated. Our Heavenly Father wants us to keep our bodies covered so that we do not put improper thoughts into the minds of others" (emphasis added).
I'm not trying to contradict church doctrine, and I realize this book is only an introduction to it - milk, as it were - but it seems reductive to me to call the italicized portion of the quotation above strictly satanic, and that's what troubles me. Of course, I'm not for flaunting the body, either. But what are the implications of this for art? What about for marriage relationships? I know very few people who I think would call certain works of Michaelangelo's ungodly, but they do show a lot of skin. What role does intent play in all of this?
Can we use this concept when teaching modesty to our children without creating a sense of shame about their bodies? Is shame proper in a fallen world, given Adam's and Eve's first experience with it? Is mortality the time to transcend this shame, or does that come later on, in a more pure environment?
You understand, I'm not talking about wanting to go around dressed immodestly, but, as the manual in question also says, "Satan’s plan is to deceive as many of us as he can to prevent us from returning to live with our Heavenly Father. One of the most damaging things he can do is entice us to break the law of chastity. He is cunning and powerful. He would like us to believe it is no sin to break this law. Many people have been deceived" (emphasis added).
Are we as Latter-day Saints to retreat into our homes and wait for all the immodestly dressed people to pass? Are we to shun activities like swimming because of the immoral clothing of many who participate in them? Are we to imagine everyone we see dressed in a large cardboard box that conceals not only their skin, but their shape as well? We have a world that bares it all for many reasons - medicine, art, and pornography to name a few - and hides it for very few. We have a Mormon culture that closes its eyes at the sight of a living woman's shoulder, but feels compelled to admire as "great" the nearly-naked creations of master artists of the past. Of course, any art created in our day along the same lines is often considered mere pornography. Because I'm asking for your help, I'm not defending or rejecting any of this. I'm just pointing it out as I see it, and I see it to be contradictory. Not paradoxical, which would make me love it, but simply inconsistent, which tempts me to call it hypocritical.
The point is that our bodies are gifts from God. They are beautiful. They are essential to fullness of joy. We will have them for eternity. What good are they if they must be hidden from our eyes and our thoughts? I know some of you will think that I just answered my question and tell me all about husbands and wives, but I think it goes beyond that. I'm not talking about sex. Please don't think that I'm saying that clothing is bad, either. We need to be large minded on this issue. We need to reach upward intellectually and spiritually. I'm talking about how to appropriately view our own bodies and those of others (all properly clothed) to whom we may - or may not - be married, and I need your thoughts.
Comments
Also, you've asked about four or five disparate questions (which you probably know) that each deserve some time and attention, especially for LDS girls.
You're very gracious to help me.
I agree completely with MoJo.
Seriously now:
I would take my children to BodyWorks without qualms. But I do have qualms.
When the Big O was about a year or two old, we went to a wax museum. The one female nude was the sole thing that attracted his attention. She was mostly faced away from us so I don't think it was a food thing (I believe he was weaned at the time anyway). Similarly, at the same age, the only thing that interested him at sporting events was the cheerleaders. I had an oversexed toddler.
Recently he found a (nonpornographic --- not even erotic) topless photograph which he instantly fell in love with. I didn't feel it was appropriate and tried to talk to him about it. But I couldn't articulate what made this bad while, as I posted Friday, not all topless things are, in my opinion, "wrong."
As you know, I've spent a lot of time trying to articulate the whats and hows and whys of all this, but I'm still mostly running on my gut. Which I don't really trust and second guess a lot.
When you find the correct answers, I hope you'll post them.
Thanks in advance,
-----th-
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. As far as I can recall, you're the first non-LDS person to comment here and I hope you'll return regularly. I appreciate your point about the USA vs. Europe. I've never been outside this country (unless you count the north side of Niagara) but I have heard many people say that. As far as the controversy goes, I heard a lot of buzz on the radio about whether or not it was appropriate for young students to see that exhibit. Most people were pretty reasonable, but there were some that said crazy censorship-based things. I agree that if you go to see something like that, you should expect to see the whole body. There's no real excuse for being surprised by it, let alone outraged.
I've had similar struggles trying to explain the inappropriateness of certain things on the level of a small child. It doesn't make sense from their innocent perspective, which may go a long way towards my question about Adam and Eve and shame.
Your series was, as I think I mentioned during it, wonderfully challenging and helpful to me. I appreciate your stopping by here. I hope we can sort things out eventually, but it's a tricky balance. I don't know whether to be flattered or frightened by your implicit faith in my ability to find "the right answers," but thanks either way.
Both, I suppose.
Unrelated: Can non Voxies not post comments on your other blog?
However, on the kid-and-instant-attraction-to-nudity thing.
I've noticed this in my kids. We ignore it. Walk around naked enough at home and it turns into a non-starter.
However (I've told this story elsewhere, but now I can't remember where--maybe Theric's blog). My MIL is about as far from LDS as you can get without going outside the "Christian" grouping.
We were in a chichi area of town where there is quite a bit of nude statuary out in public, though in little niches here and there. They're arranged so that if you notice them, Easter egg!
Anyway, we walked past a bronze of a nude woman with her legs spread, showing her "nether parts" (I'm a romance novelist, sue me). However, for me it came under the heading of "art." My XY tax deduction stopped short (he was 2-1/4 at the time) and stared. My MIL was bordering on horrified. She looked at me and I'm like, "I don't care if he sees that. It's the Playboys I don't want in my house."
Since then, I've taken both tax deductions to the art gallery numerous times (one's 5, the other's 3 now) and they're inured to it. At those ages, I think it's natural and to bring attention to it as unnatural might do more harm in the long run than good.
"At those ages, I think it's natural and to bring attention to it as unnatural might do more harm in the long run than good."
I agree with this statement, though I must admit that our methodology differs somewhat. I don't walk around the house naked, for example. However, your differentiation between nude statuary and porn magazines speaks to one of the central ideas that I'm hoping to deal with - i.e., that many of the problems we face in this area may be due to unhealthy attitudes, not inappropriate material. I'm not saying that nude "art" is always appropriate, and I recognize that we all have different thresholds, but the idea that anything naked is sexual seems less and less valid to me as time goes on.
Just because I can't say it enough, I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating or seeking justification for any kind of permissiveness in anything. That's what was so great about Th.'s exploration of this issue in literature. The questions here are tough, but real and, since corporeality is the defining feature of mortality, these questions may even be central to certain kinds of success here.
The body as represented in literature and culture is one of my primary research interests, so I'm especially intrigued by the way it's perceived in Mormon culture and theology. You've sparked some connections in my mind that I hope to pursue in a post of my own, so don't think I'm opting out. I'll get it done. Just not today.
Anyway, good post.
Don't hold your breath, Adam: he told me the same thing (grumble grumble).
And no, you didn't misrepresent me. I just don't really want ANOTHER registration to remember....
Back to the topic at hand:
I reread the 1 Corinthians discussion of resurrection recently and it had a whole new meaning from the perspective of my comments about shame.
Here it is
When it talks about bodies being sown and raised in various states, I wonder if that means something along the lines of what I said before: that to keep our bodies covered while in a mortal state protects us from shame, but in the eternal world the rules will be different. I've always wondered about Joseph Smith's statement that Moroni's robe (on the of their introduction) was open so that he could tell he was not wearing anything else. I don't know how far to take that statement or how much importance to attach to it.
I don't quite remember what I had to say anymore, so don't sweat it.