After recent articles on various social issues, the Church News called for questions from readers.  Following is an answer to one Question, prompted by an article titled, “Image Integrity” (Church News, June 23, 2007). 

Question:  Can you articulate why modesty is more than just being covered?
Regarding issues of modesty versus immodesty, we’re dealing with something much bigger than the simple matter of what’s covered and what’s not. 
Knowing that modesty is not just a Mormon matter, let’s go to the very public Webster’s New World College Dictionary. There we find that modest and modesty describe “behaving, dressing, or speaking in a way that is considered proper, decent, or decorous; quiet, humble, in moderation, not extreme or excessive; humble in appearance, style.”
References to being or not being “humble” are intriguing, as we have people taking pride in not taking care of themselves.  There is certainly more to modesty than simply covering our bodies.  Modesty has everything to do with attitude, manner, and manners, which reflect the inward condition of our heart and mind.
When you see people wearing a skimpy tank top in 30° weather, shirts three sizes too small, ripped and ragged jeans or baggy pants with three inches of underwear exposed, common sense says the choice of what to wear has nothing to do with limited availability, high cost, or comfort.  It’s all about attitude and intent.  It relates to women and girls, men and boys. 
Oh yes, immodest dress is about fashion, but not fashion as the praiseworthy art form that strives to create beauty and harmony in clothing design and appearance.  Immodest fashions of our day are about fashion for shock value to get attention or express defiance and rebellion.
Fashion today is too much about attitude and deconstruction—trash fashion that’s ripped, ragged, dirty, stained, faded, frayed, and raw.  Instead of fashion coming together in modest, well-fitted, finished, attractive, handsome, or beautiful, harmonious garments, we're now seeing body-baring, tight-fitting, deconstructed clothes; underpants and undershirts sticking out; lingerie-style-camisoles worn on the outside over t-shirts instead of wearing a blouse; clothes worn inside-out with tags and raw seams exposed; suit jackets worn with faded jeans, cargo-pants, pajamas, or brown-stained dirty denim with “whiskers” at the crotch.  Each of these looks is immodest, as it distracts or draws undue and negative attention to itself and to the body, making the “anti- statement” of defiance or rebellion. 
We need to pay more attention to what we’re buying into.  When a popular line of low-riding jeans is labeled the “Offenders,” you know it’s all about creating an appearance intended to offend others.  When fashion advertisers push “dirty denim” and “whiskers,” purposely designed to draw attention to the lower torso, you know it’s designed to be suggestive.  When fashion industry articles are titled, “Trash Fashion,” and “Sewer Chic,” you know we’ve sunk to new lows.  But knowing and admitting these points are entirely different. 
Immodest fashions are also about blindly following the trend just to fit in, a reflection of our own insecurity and also pushed for the sake of sales.  “But it’s in fashion,” and “everybody else is wearing it,” never were justifiable excuses for wearing immodest clothing.   
Former Church President Spencer W. Kimball, knew what was coming and did not mince words in warning, “We are witless accomplices in Satan’s efforts to deconstruct the tradition for modest, beautiful styles in clothing to ragged jeans and T-shirts with stupid pictures……” (Spencer W. Kimball, “A Style of Our Own,” BYU, 13 February 1951).
“Immodest” describes anything that draws undue or negative attention to ourselves and to our body.  It’s distracting.  Anything that distracts from the purpose of education, business, leadership, or worship does not belong in the school, the office, the home, the community, the church or temple.