In this essay I will explore that view from a moral and scriptural perspective.
A. One claim made in support of the contention that the issue is purely that of the observer…. is to tout that…..Jesus, (the exemplar we are trying to follow), never looked upon a woman with lust, no matter how she was dressed.
That claim is absolutely true, and in fact does represent the ideal. It is good to remember however, that Jesus was flawless. He had overcome the natural man. The battle for him was won. Thus, if every man on the planet had successfully fulfilled Christ’s mandate and become “even as He is” they too would only see women as Jesus did. There would clearly never be any lust or objectification.
However, for the many mortal men who have yet to reach that level and are fighting daily to overcome the natural man, how others dress may still have a negative, and even harmful, impact on their struggles.
Also, that claim does not mean that Jesus was not tempted. Scripture makes it clear they he was in all things tempted as we are, but because of his absolute victory over the natural man, the temptations had no effect on Him, they never took hold. They were always repelled, and He remained pure.
However, the truth that temptations were not effective on Christ, does not necessarily mean that those temptations will not be effective on humans who are still engaged in the struggle to put off the natural man. A true disciple of Jesus should never want to even come close to causing, or supporting, a temptation.
B. The natural man is carnal, sensual and devilish. Satan knows that and so will do all in his power to give natural man dominance over the spirit. Satan uses the natural man and its destructive addictions to destroy God’s children. This is clearly seen in the area of pornography. I have worked with many of God’s children who are engulfed in the dark abyss of pornography addiction. It would never be an effective strategy in helping them recover, to simply tell them, “well the problem is your lust, so just stop lustful thoughts as you continue to gaze at pornography.” No. Every step to overcome such addiction, and to restore the power of God’s spirit, requires removal of any appearance of pornography. For a person battling an addiction to pornography, reading the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition would be just as destructive as it would be for an alcoholic to attend a party where booze is plentiful.
C. Now it is truly the case that no soul will, in the final judgment day, be able to escape accountability for their choices on how they handled impure and immoral thoughts, by blaming their actions on the dress of others. However, it is also true that those who choose to dress immodestly, for whatever reason, in spite of the impact that their choice may have on their fellow beings who were fighting the battle to control their thoughts, will also be accountable for such a lack of compassion.
Paul taught his principle beautifully with regard to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. Paul was truly converted. He knew God and Christ absolutely. He loved the commandments, and zealously strove to keep them. He had no problem with eating meats offered to pagan gods, since it would have no impact on his soul or salvation.
However, Paul also recognized that not everyone was at his same level. He compassionately recognized that some observing him might be harmed spiritually by observing his actions. True, if those observers misjudged Paul and his actions, and those misjudgments led them to fall, that would be their own problem. Justice would never implicate Paul in any such case. But Paul was not only about justice. He was not satisfied with trying to justify or rationalize away his actions. Paul was also about mercy and love. His love for all of God’s children led him to avoid even the appearance of evil, they he might never be a stumbling block to those whose struggles were powerful and whose resolve was weaker than his own.
Similarly, true love should dictate a desire in all who love others, to dress modestly, so they may never be a stumbling block. True, if someone looks upon an immodestly dressed person and that gaze engenders lustful temptations, justice will place those temptation, and how they are resolved squarely upon the shoulders of the one gazing. However, recognizing the trial and challenges that so many are going through in that battle, why would one choose to dress in a way that would help the adversary in his plan, or that might help to destroy a spiritual sibling no matter how weak, blamable and personally accountable that person was? What value is there in dressing immodestly that is worth the risk of becoming a stumbling block?
If your family were regular consumers of alcohol and your house was filled with various types of liquor, and a much loved uncle, who was also an recovering alcoholic, was coming for a visit, would not common decency and basic compassion move you to remove any such temptations for the time he was there? It is the case that such a family could justify doing nothing, placing full responsibility for the alcoholism where it rightly belongs, and if their actions led to a slip up, well they would be without guilt... but why would a family chance that with one that they loved?
Years ago, tobacco companies attempted to justify their actions in producing a product that destroyed the live of millions, with the related reasoning that their actions were innocent. The moral responsibility and accountability for all the ills of smoking rested on the ones who chose to smoke. After all, they reasoned, the person could simply have chosen to resist the temptation to smoke and thus preserved their health. Producers of pornography have made similar claims, claiming they only produce what the people want, and stating that if there was no demand, they would not make such products.
Those cold and calculating justifications not only fly in the face of Paul’s teaching and example about avoiding stumbling blocks but they also display a “that’s YOUR problem” mentality which wreaks of selfishness and violates the both the first and second great commandments.
D. The debate over wearing masks also brings some insights to the modesty issue. I have seen throughout the COVID 19 epidemic a similar narcissism among our fellow humans. It is true that those at great risk could choose to stay in quarantine in their home so that others would not need to be mandated to wear masks. If one leaves their confines of their home they argue, and contracts COVID because of that, the responsibility is theirs. However, given the propensity for harm, why would any Godly person choose to skip the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask for the welfare of their fellow beings? Similarly, given the potential for harm, why would a goodly person choose to reject the minor inconvenience of dressing modestly?
E. The scriptures and modern teachings of God through His prophets clearly outline that it is God’s desire that his children dress modestly. That being the case, then all the preceding arguments are really insignificant. The first and great commandment would have us love God so much, that we would dress modestly for no other reason than it pleases Him who we love with all our heart, might, mind and strength.
Years ago, the wife of a brother who served with me in a Bishopric, shared her sweet experiences and journey as they related to modesty. She confessed that as a convert to the church she was very immodest in her dress, and the issue had never been brought up by those who taught her. However, over time as she matured and grew spiritually, she began to feel promptings of the spirit and tender nudges leading her toward modesty of dress. In time she came to desire to dress modestly because she knew it pleased God, and she felt joy in the transformation.
Given all the foregoing, I am truly puzzled why any son or daughter of God who loved Him and their fellow beings, would ever advocate for dressing immodestly.