Mormons: you can not wear saree in church!
Marissa (from NY) in her Spinalmoth blog has a posting titled “Sari Sadness”:
In an earlier post I expressed my sadness for not having an excuse to wear a sari. At church today one of the brothers (the first bishop in India!) gave a talk about preparing for the temple. In it he explained how for Indian women in the church, although wearing a sari is something most women want to be able to do, especially once they are endowed, Indian LDS women cannot if they are to dress modestly.
For some reason it hadn’t occurred to me that sari’s were immodest. The choli (the top) is often short sleeved and not super low cut and the pallu (the loose draped fabric) often covers up the front of the midriff so I didn’t think much about it. For those who don’t know, traditionally, sari’s leave part of the midriff exposed. How much midriff exposure varies but there is almost always SOME.
I am not going to reflect on the Later Day Saints (LDS or Mormons), but to suggest that a saree is “immodest” is not fair to the perishners. Saree is the most versatile garment there is. If a muslim woman following Hijab can wear a saree, there is no reason a member of the LDS can not wear a saree.
You just need to use the right blouse and have an appropriate length of the blouse so it covers your body and you can use your pallu to cover yourself and remain “modest”.
But there is no logic to religious practices; you got to follow your faith and avoid wearing a saree at the church.
But I do share her sari sadness!
PS: This is only true for LDS (Mormon) church; other churches and denominations do not have such restriction. In fact, the most recent bible approved by the church for India, includes pictures of women in saree. There is a picture of Virgin Mary in saree somewhere.
8 Responses to “Mormons: you can not wear saree in church!”
Leave a Reply
About US
Sunny is a designer in Los Angeles. He loves the fluidity and fluency of a saree and believes that when a woman wears a saree, she not only adorns her body but she also adorns her soul. His design ethos is that “simplicity never goes out of style.”
Rupa Gupta: A writer, editor and journalist, Rupa has been in the media for more than two decades. She has worked as Editor with major publications, both in India and abroad. a keen eye for fashion and current trends. Her sense of aesthetics transcends the hype and always finds the true beauty.
Liza Varma is a former Femina Miss India and well known model in Delhi. Today, she is a leading Fashion Choreographer with over 1000 shows to her credit in India and abroad. She is also a member of the Fashion Design Council of India and a Consultant with Shoot Talent Management. Her client list is the who’s who of Indian fashion industry.
Misty is a student in London and has her fingers on the pulse of London fashion industry.
Abhi is a student in San Francisco and showcases sensuous saree pictures.
Kamini is a model in Los Angeles and loves to accentuate the best a saree has to offer.
Hey! I don’t think I was clear in my post because other people have had similar reactions. I was not saying that a saree is inherently immodest according to the church but that any garment is immodest if the midriff is showing. If you can wear a saree so that your midriff is not showing then there is no reason why it would not be okay. I am glad to hear you can!
How unfortunate that ethnocentricism continues to be conveyed and accepted as normative.
As good a reason as I know for deciding Mormonism is ridiculous. It beggars imagination that any Indian would become a Mormon for starters, let alone take such idiotic dress regulations seriously. Anyone looking at history can see for themselves that “sumptuary laws” usually fail. And as an Indian, I find this pronouncement completely insulting. Who cares what a bunch of religious nutcases think anyway? I love the sensuality and beauty of Indian clothes and see nothing wrong with flaunting my own sensuality either. There is nothing inherently immodest about showing the midriff either-such ideas are nothing more that arbitrary conventions.
So I take it Western pictures of Mary, Christ and people of the same time are immodest and should be banned from church?? Wear do you think much of the design of the nivi style came from?? Roman toga, then again Christ must have thought he was in hell since it’s believed that the time between his adolesence and adulthood was spent in India. Mormons have been to my house, I have a book of Mormon and I’ve had them try to convert me. First let me say that if a Mormon is going to try and talk trash about my religion (Hinduism btw and by choice not birth) learn about it first, Hindus have the Vedas not the Quran as was believed by some “elders” from the Mormon church. Secondly if a sari is immodest and banned from the church what does the church expect of the poor? Or are they just not allowed in church if they can’t afford to buy new clothes that are more acceptable (jeans and tshirts are unofficially not allowed in church either, at least not in Canada)? I think this is a brilliant show of the lack of respect and tolerance in the Mormon church I could go on about Mormons like Warren Jeffs who held high ranking positions in the Mormon church but I’ll let Google do the talking for me (it matters little to me that he *later* broke off to form his own Mormon sect, Mormon is as Mormon does). And why is it that Women have to dress modestly in the Mormon church?? Maybe because the men have wandering eyes and minds? We all know the stories and truth about the LDS so it’s not worth arguing about it because you’ll lose if you support them. I will now include the proper name of the “Muslim” sari if this isn’t modest enough for the LDS I suggest they start passing out burkas;
The Muslim Pinkosu sari which were/are used by Tamil women who converted to Islam and it only requires a 6yd sari. The instructions can be found in “SARIS: An illustrated guide to the Indian art of draping” by Chantal Boulanger.
This drape should definately fill the LDS need for “modesty” (aka control). After all this is really all about the fact that these “churches” see a sari as Hindu and are working hard to ban any type of Hindu “paraphernalia” from the churches using any kind of made up excuse they can think of.
Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS aka Mormon), I’d like to present another point of insider view in the hope of fostering better understanding.
To begin, Anon, I hope you are not “insulted” because you feel that only Indian clothing has been scrutinized by members according to the standards of modesty embraced by LDS Church. However, if that truly is the source, in a hope of assuaging what upset our practices and values might have caused you, I would like to assure that clothing and modesty standards in the LDS Church are applied equally to all cultures, be they Indian, Contemporary American/European, Native American, African, or Asian. No culture or cultural habit is singled out above all others, nor is The LDS Church attempting to “ban” any particular culture. In fact, the Hawaiian culture is celebrated and preserved by members at BYU-Hawaii via the Polynesian Cultural Center, which was instituted by The LDS Church. (And on that note we might agree, some Hawaiian cultural clothing probably exposes more skin than the customary Indian Sari, though members are still not allowed to wear such styles to church.)
Moreover, women of Indian heritage are not prohibited from wearing sari in the LDS Church. I attended a particular ward (akin to a parish), in which an Indian member wore a sari to our meetings every Sunday. She was not prevented from doing so. They were extremely beautiful, and in fact, my parents later purchased a sari for me, and this particular woman actually taught me how to properly wear it, which I greatly appreciated.
Of course, on the same token, having made several sacred covenants in a LDS temple marriage with her husband, this woman did pay particular attention to the modesty of her sari, employing blouses that had sleeves and did not expose her midriff. But I would like to point out, having talked to her on the matter that this was her decision in reverence of those temple covenants, and not something she felt The LDS Church forced upon her.
Many who are not members of The LDS Church, or even members who choose not to subscribe to the standards of The Church, may see the practices therein as sumptuary; a form of subjugation. While the standards do exemplify a particular set of behaviors, I’d like to point out that members are unequivocally free to choose whether or not they will apply them to their own lives.
It is true that modesty, as a standard, is highly revered in The LDS Church. Women subscribe to the same standard of modesty as men, for the same reasons. Some might ascribe this to a need to prevent certain psychological reactions in men (and women); i.e. wandering eyes and minds. Perhaps for some (or many), this is true. However, the practice of modesty in The LDS Church involves far more, and a concept more special.
When members enter the temple, they go through special ordinances wherein sacred covenants are made and blessings given. A component of these ordinances involves specialized undergarments, which are viewed by those who understand their significance, as the expression of their pledge to keep the covenants made in the temple and follow the Savior. After receiving the ordinances, the covenants also involve continually wearing the garments for the remainder of life, and part of respecting the garments, this symbol, is wearing clothing that covers them completely and not exposing them to the public. Of course, in some cases unpreventable accidents may happen. But, overall, temple garments are designed in such a way that clothing which exposes the midriff or even sleeveless articles, will also unduly expose the garment, and are therefore avoided by most Church members. Such exposure is akin to breaking a temple covenant, for those who believe in them and their sacredness.
Not least, it is also believed that modesty invites the Holy Spirit to be a constant and welcome companion. Thus our children are taught at an early age the practice of modesty.
It is also true that The LDS Church encourages its members to wear “their best” clothing to church, and more significantly, the temple. Often times, this is observed in women wearing nice dresses and men wearing suits. It is also true that those who own “better” clothing, are discouraged from wearing casual clothing (such as jeans and tee-shirts) to church. However! In some cases, the “best” clothing one might own may be jeans. And no one that I know of has ever been turned away at the door for wearing casual clothing (or even pantsuits, in the case of women). Nor does The LDS Church put stress on individuals buying new clothing to attend church, if they are unable to afford it. In such a case, if the financially-stricken individual is willing, they can receive donations of “appropriate” clothing from other members.
In conclusion, I believe the Indian Bishop might have been misunderstood when he stated that women cannot wear the sari. I think he was likely emphasizing modesty among members (those who have made sacred temple covenants, and for those who might someday wish to do so), rather than “banning” a particular cultural piece of attire. It was likely that he was attempting to encourage his members to wear the sari with modesty. And the sari is capable of being worn modestly, and is worn modestly by some Indian women both inside and even outside The LDS Church.
It’s always a choice to be made by the individual.
Mormon M, you are my hero. Thank you.
I was all geared up to write a response…but i think Mormon M said it perfectly. Thank you
Hi,
I just wanted to let you know that I am Indian and all the women in my family who are LDS wear saris to go to Church!! I myself, I would hope that my future wife will wear it too as long as it worn without showing the midriff!!