Recently the whole “Shoulders editing in yearbooks” think blew up world wide

Then the students pointed out it was to shame them, and that the boys were NOT photoshopped even though they sometimes wore no shirt at all!

Of course that led to the rebellious counter photoshops:

And of course making Arnold Friberg’s Book of Mormon pictures more modest:

This hearkens back to the editing of famous artists’ by the church to cover shoulders as well

But what is really going on? Was the LDS church always anti-shoulder?

Brigham was Pro-shoulder as being modest. How about just a few years ago at BYU?

In fact, I cannot remember it being an issue to show shoulders when I was a kid in the 80’s and 90’s. Back then yoga pants with shorts on top and stretch clothing to hide a midriff was on the EFY handbook itself as the guide to modesty.

Are we all dreaming? Did the LDS church suddenly go modesty crazy? Well, yes, in fact we can even show the year, 1999:

The blog “Zelophehad’s Daughters” posts the number of “modesty related articles” in church magazines by year. One can quickly see the LDS church has really made an effort to push this new concept. I have to ask, what did they replace to focus on Modesty? Articles on Christ? Prayer? Family service?

What was the even that happened in 1999 that drove the church to re-emphasize it’s focus on girl’s shoulders so much? Further, does anyone remember a revelation in 1999 being published that changed the modesty standard? I don’t.

It was the year 2000, that Hinkley changed the church’s focus to “Earrings, one pair” while terrorists were planning to bring down twin towers (Hinkley spoke on earrings both before and after the world trade center) so clearly during this time period control of physical appearance was being discussed. I would warn believing members however, that their church is running away on this issue and taking their daughter’s with them. Without revelation, if this is just policy, in 20 years it could be the next set of things that seem ridiculous that they ever believed or it could be an indication of fundamentalism: