**Update** Some people have been having difficulty commenting. Please type your comment in a different application and then copy and paste to the form. If it doesn't show, you can email it to me directly at daisyzombie@gmail.com and I will post it for you. Thank you!**
I recently was asked a question about the stance of the LDS
church on public breastfeeding, and more specifically, whether or not a
breastfeeding cover was a requirement for “modesty”. Like many issues
that we come up against in today’s society, the Church doesn’t have an
official stance that they have come out with. In such situations, I find
it helpful to look into Church doctrine, scripture, and other materials
distributed by the church to find evidence of the Church’s disposition
towards a certain practice. To be clear, I am in no way claiming to be a
spokesperson for the Church or for other members of the Church. All
views contained here are strictly my own.
The first place I came across where breastfeeding was portrayed
was in the Church’s artwork, and in fact, it was almost the sole area
where there is any information at all. There are multiple instances of
women breastfeeding in LDS artwork, and I have put many of them here,
along with links.
The illustration below is of an LDS church meeting in 1871 and
was printed in the Harper’s Bazaar magazine. The meeting took place in
the Mormon Tabernacle. The full image can be seen by clicking on the
link, and is displayed in the LDS History Museum. Notice that there are
two women breastfeeding in the front row.
http://rixarixa.blogspot.com/2010/08/breastfeeding-history-moment-lds.html
At Temple Square, a place which has been used constantly to
tell others about our religion and what we believe in, the Seagull
Monument contains an image depicting a woman breastfeeding. Not only is
she “uncovered”, but her breast is exposed.
Source:
http://shelleybeatty.com/travel/salt-lake-city-temple-square-the-temple-flowers-and-incredible-beauty/
This next picture is displayed in the LDS Cardston, Alberta
temple, and there is a woman who is breastfeeding as Christ is
teaching and has her breast fully exposed. There are two other babies shown in the nursing position, although some high quality close-ups provided to me by a friend show that it is disputable whether they are actually nursing. All
artwork in the temples has to be approved by General Authorities. Click the link for better picture
quality.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=32332e4d12fdb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
A final picture, currently at the University of Utah,
contributed by the LDS Museum of History and Art there is a painting
containing an image of a pioneer woman breastfeeding. She can be seen in
front of a wagon wheel, her breast is also exposed.
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/Utah_Artists/id/710
I’d like to make some points about these images. Firstly, the
breastfeeding is happening in the presence of men, and men who are
unrelated to the women. That is one argument that I have heard, to the
effect of “It’s ok if you want to breastfeed, but not with MEN around.”
Apparently there have been many times in the church’s history where MEN
were perfectly comfortable with a mother seeing to her child’s needs and
were able to refrain from uncomfortable behavior around her.
Secondly, none of the women are using any type of cover other
than what their clothing naturally shields. The General Authorities have
specified modesty to us even down to the number of earrings that a
woman should wear, but they have made no mention of breastfeeding in any
of these discussions of modesty.
Thirdly, no one seems to be uncomfortable in these pictures or
seems to think anything of the fact that there are women breastfeeding.
This shows that the behavior of these women was a normal culturally
accepted behavior.
Lastly, and I think most importantly, these images are
displayed in areas that General Authorities visit on a regular, and
sometimes daily, basis. However, none of them have had anything to say
about the “inappropriate” or “immodest” depictions of the women. These
are not images that are hidden in rarely visited corners of the Church,
but are prominently displayed and approved by church authorities to be
displayed in this way.
These pictures show that there was a time when openly feeding
your child at the breast was an accepted and natural occurrence for
modest and devout members of the church. However, there’s seems to have
been a change in the culture of the church in some areas to the extent
that it is no longer seen as a modest and seemly practice by some
members. Why did this change occur? What is different now in comparison
to the past? Still searching in doctrine, I found this quote from A
Parent’s Guide, which is a manual distributed to members of the Church
to guide and direct parents in the rearing of their children.
A quote from A Parent’s Guide:
“
The scriptures often refer respectfully but plainly to the
body and its parts. There is no embarrassment and often there is sacred
symbolism. It is the world that makes the divinely created body an
object of carnal lust. For example, it makes the female breasts
primarily into sexual enticements, while the truth is that they were
intended to nourish and comfort children. It promotes male sexual
aggression in contrast to Christ’s example of tenderness,
long-suffering, kindness, and steadfastness in the home.
Shame about the human body, its parts and purposes, is
justified only when a person uses it for carnal purposes. Teach your
children that they will find joy in their bodies when they use them
virtuously after the manner taught by Christ.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide/chapter-5-teaching-adolescents-from-twelve-to-eighteen-years?lang=eng
The perversion of the female breast being seen as a sexual
object is not a new phenomenon. What has changed recently is our
perspective of the breast when being properly used in the “nurturing and
comforting of children.” Instead of appreciating and understanding this
blessing from our Heavenly Father, our culture seems to be trending
toward pushing embarrassment and shame onto mothers. So, in essence if
our culture is moving in this direction then Satan is succeeding in
changing the view that we should have of our OWN bodies to something
contrary to the divine purpose appointed by God. This is in addition to
also changing the definition of masculinity, from something steady and
kind, to something predatory and aggressive.
From this change, two trains of thought among LDS women have
sprung up. One mindset is that, because men have been taught that they
are predatory and sexually driven, women feel that they need to protect
themselves from men, and also protect men from their own carnal
thoughts, by relying on conservatism in dress and behavior, thereby
reducing opportunities for Satan’s temptations.
The other mindset is to resist Satan’s influence in our culture
as a whole; to encourage resistance to temptation by seeing the female
body from a heavenly and accurate perspective. They believe that by
setting the example of treating their bodies as they were divinely
designed to be treated is the most effective way of resisting Satan’s
misdefinition of modesty and hope they will raise a generation that no
longer holds the false ideas of the previous one.
It seems that the choice to cover or not to cover is an
intensely personal one. According to my research, either choice is an
appropriate one, and the most important thing is that we are respectful
of each other’s choices. The authorities of the Church have been
approached numerous times with a request to come out with a statement
about breastfeeding and they have not. The only other direction that I
could find besides that in A Parent’s Guide is a comment from LDS church
spokesman Scott Trotter :
"
Countless thousands of mothers have been accommodated in
church for generations, simply by everyone observing common sense,
discretion and respect."
There is a place in the Church for women who want to sit on the
front row in Sacrament meeting and breastfeed their active toddler and a
place for the mother who prefers the discreteness of a cover or a
mother’s lounge. It is not an issue of modesty or sexuality, but one of
comfort for both the mother and the child.
An additional thought: I don't wish for any of this to imply anything negative about those mothers for whom breastfeeding their children is not a viable option. How wonderful it is that God has provided us with the knowledge to create an alternative for all of the children who do not have access to breast milk for any reason!
