Honestly, it is also quite important to consider what you are sowing. I dont know in which way the 'gospel of dress reform' is not one of Pauls "another gospel" from his letter to Galatia. Weeds grow equally good on stony ground as it does on good soil. If you do have a "ministry" that has dress reform as one of its pilars Tammy, may God be mercifull.

Thomas

Thomas,
Dress reform is not "another gospel"....it is part of the health message which is the "opening" wedge for the gospel. I don't try to force people to dress like me...I don't push the dress message...but...it just happens to be the subject here...so, if we are going to discuss the subject, we ought to really see what counsel the Lord has given us through the writings of Ellen White. We claim to be the last day church, because, one reason anyways, is that we have a "last day prophet"...yet, we seem to not like to read what the prophet says, when it comes to practical subjects, like how we dress, what we eat, etc.

The standard of modesty, in God's eyes, hasn't changed...

The SOP says the arms should be covered as much as the chest. Does anyone here practice that? Wondering...

Hi Arnold,
My understanding of this is a little different than many, but, perhaps you will see some light in it. I just went and looked up a quote on clothing the arms and the legs, I'm sure there are more, but most of them, far as I know, say something very similar to this one:



I believe that for health sake, if it is "chilly" outside, or inside for that matter, so that your arms & legs are chilled...then you should be wearing long sleeves and something on your legs, as well. But, if it is hot outside, then it is not a matter of health to wear long sleeves.

About 25 years ago, Al and I lived in TN...it was a hot, humid Summer. Ty Gibson was just coming on the scene then, (preaching an altogether different message than he does today )and we invited him the Collegedale area. He and James Rafferty were visiting us in our home, and I had on a long dress, cottony material, with short sleeves. They gave me a good talking to, telling me I was not following the dress reform, cause my arms were not covered...and that it was really immodest, and that if I would just try it, I would find out that it was cooler to wear long sleeves. Well, we lived in a little trailer and had no air conditioning, and it was Summertime in TN! We had a little fan in the living room. The whole time Ty & James was there, they stayed right in front of the fan...and when Al went to visit them at the boys dorm where they were staying, they had their long sleeves on, and were sitting on the air conditioner...

There is no doubt in my mind, when it is really hot and humid, short sleeves are much cooler. But, I do believe that no matter what the weather is, we must be modest at all times. There are some who say that short sleeves are immodest, I supposed they can be, but they sure don't have to be. I don't believe in sleeveless...

I believe the counsel for clothing the limbs is normally in context with the weather....and we should apply it accordingly.

What do you think?

Firstly, considering whom Paul was once writing about, people who came to churches he had established wanting to add to the clear word of the gospel, the question here of course is thus: does this add to the gospel in any way? Do you teach dress reform as something in addition to the gospel and do people whom you teach understand or experience dress reform as something additional to the gospel? If either of these are answered yes, then it is in fact "another gospel" wether you intended it to be so or not.

Secondly, dress reform as part of the health message as a wedge for the gospel. In my view, there was a time when education on dress reform did improve general health. But are not such times now gone by? People who have dirty clothes or not enough clothes or otherwise fall in a category who would benefit from dress reform for health reasons, are they still not aware of the health aspect but for other reasons are unwilling or unable to change the situation?
Also, the health message as a wedge for the gospel? Health messages are wedges for everything from breakfast cereals to New Age these days. It was wise to teach health in a time when noone else did so, but today when everyone and their mother are on the health message bandwaggon? How much more will it take to have a health message fatigue among people?

Thirdly, we have a last day prophet. We "have"? Ellen has been dead for almost 100 years now. In which way do we "have" Ellen as a prophet that we do not for instance "have" Paul and Peter as apostles? If Ellen had lived today and given her advice and prophecies into todays experience, would she have said the same things? Would her emphasis have been the same as it was then? No matter that some of the questions that people raised then are very different from some of the questions that people raise today? Ellen would have found little reason today to write about skirts gathering uncleanliness from the streets for the simple reason that only a very very tiny minority of people today wear such skirts. Maybe she would have suggested the wearing of long sleaved clothes on sunny and warm days as protection from unhealthy UV light instead?

Thomas

Arnold, like you, I also prefer women in modest dresses, but I am not offended when they wear modest pants. I do not believe they are violating the principles of dress reform when they wear modest pants. What do you think about men and women wearing long shorts and tee shirts while swimming together?

Tammy, I am not the unteachable liberal sinner you make me out to be. Like you, I embrace the principles of dress reform and apply them in a way that results in optimum health and modesty. You wear short sleeve shirts based on principle even though the dress reform advocated in the SOP calls for long sleeves.

Your assumption that the requirement of long sleeves applies only to chilly temperatures is unfounded. Women simply did not wear short sleeves. It was considered immodest. It is still considered immodest in countries where temperatures are very hot. The women also wear long head coverings in spite of the heat. And they manage just fine.

In our country, though, short sleeves and modest pants are no longer considered immodest. Even long shorts is not considered immodest. Wearing long shorts (below the knees) is no more immodest than wearing a short sleeved shirt. Showing your arms and showing your legs is basically the same thing.

Do you see what I mean?

I think this advice is still as relevant today. Maybe even more so. So often I see little ones hardly covered in cool weather. The mothers seem not to notice. More education in child care would be useful.

My mother had a cousin die at about two years of age, back in 1945. Some 30 - 40 years later, my aunt was talking with a woman, that claimed to have seen the child outside with hardly any clothes on looking a bit blue. (wonder why she didn't do something? Today someone would most likely report to social service) His mother was often off to some social or religious gathering and tended to neglect the offspring. Just leaving the younger at home with the other children. The children were left in soiled diapers for long periods.

Besides the health issue, theres is the modesty issue.

There was a time that for a woman to show her ankles even when lifting the hem for a few seconds was considered quite titillating.

Now, you can see some women in skirts that barely cover the posterior.

I suspect that immodest dress in society in general is more of a symptom of the times. As in the days of Noah. . . .

Someone said to me that the further away from God what we are, the less we cover ourselves. Do you think there is anything to it?

No MM, I do not see what you mean. Short sleeves (not sleeveless) cannot be compared to shorts. Please find me a statement in the SOP that says we should wear long sleeves for modesty?

Please consider the following two quotes:





The first quote, like every other than I have found, always puts long sleeves in the context of "warmth, protection and comfort", NOT "modesty" as you are trying to imply.

The second quote, shows that people did wear short sleeves in those days, and it was not considered immoral.

You are trying to "muddy the waters" as they say, by comparing short sleeves to shorts. The legs of a woman are quite different than the arms of a woman, I can't say that I ever heard of a man who was staring at a woman's arms, but I've heard of many who couldn't keep their eyes off a woman's legs.

Here is what she says about woman wearing pants, and please, I pray that any woman reading this, will not be offended, but search and pray and ask God to show you the truth. It is not easy to give up wearing pants, especially if you are a "tomboy" type of woman...I threw all my pants out THREE times (over 10 years ago), before I was finally able to "pick up the cross" and carry it. And yes, Dress Reform is a "cross"...I'll give you that quote in a moment...

(words in () are mine)

And here is the quote about dress reform being a "cross".



But, Jesus will help us carry the "cross", and honestly, it truly is as He promised it would be, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

MM, please don't confuse people... The SOP has given us specific directions even as to how long our dresses should be...



I've never read anything how sleeves should be within so many inches of the wrist... As I said, you are mudding the waters and trying to confuse the issue. The principles as I read them, are #1. That our limbs should be covered for warmth and healths sake, according to the weather. #2. Women's legs should not be exposed for the sake of modesty.