Reform in Dress
      
      
         431
      
      
        have taken the extreme meaning of that which I have written in regard
      
      
        to the length of the dress, and have evidently had a very hard time over
      
      
        the matter. With their distorted views of the matter they have discussed
      
      
        the question of shortening the dress until their spiritual vision has
      
      
        become so confused that they can only see men as trees walking. They
      
      
        have thought they could see a contradiction in my article on dress,
      
      
        recently published in How to Live, and that article on the same subject
      
      
        contained in Testimony for the Church, No. 10. I must contend that
      
      
        I am the best judge of the things which have been presented before
      
      
        me in vision; and none need fear that I shall by my life contradict my
      
      
        own testimony, or that I shall fail to notice any real contradiction in
      
      
        the views given me.
      
      
        “In my article on dress in How to Live I tried to present a healthful,
      
      
        convenient, economical, yet modest and becoming style of dress for
      
      
        Christian women to wear, if they should choose so to do. I tried,
      
      
        perhaps imperfectly, to describe such a dress. ‘The dress should reach
      
      
        somewhat below the top of the boot, but should be short enough to
      
      
        clear the filth of the sidewalk and street, without being raised by the
      
      
        hand.’ Some have contended that by the top of the boot, I meant the
      
      
         [463]
      
      
        top of such boots as men usually wear. But by ‘the top of the boot,’
      
      
        I designed to be understood the top of a boot, or gaiter shoe, usually
      
      
        worn by women. Had I thought I should be misunderstood, I would
      
      
        have written more definitely. If it were the custom for women to
      
      
        wear high-topped boots like men, I could see sufficient excuse for this
      
      
        misunderstanding. I think the language is very plain as it now reads,
      
      
        and no one needs to be thrown into confusion. Please read again: ‘The
      
      
        dress should reach somewhat below the top of the boot.’ Now look at
      
      
        the qualification: ‘But should be short enough to clear the filth of the
      
      
        sidewalk and street, without being raised by the hand. A still shorter
      
      
        dress than this would be proper, convenient, and healthful for women
      
      
        when doing their housework, and especially for those who are obliged
      
      
        to perform more or less out-of-door labor.’
      
      
        “I can see no excuse for reasonable persons misunderstanding and
      
      
        perverting my meaning. In speaking of the length of the dress, had I
      
      
        referred to high-topped boots reaching nearly to the knee, why should
      
      
        I have added, ‘but [the dress] should be short enough to clear the
      
      
        filth of the sidewalk and street, without being raised by the hand’? If
      
      
        high-topped boots were meant, the dress would most certainly be short