white shirts, tattoos, and piercings

I understand that conformity is a part of why the men wear white shirts and suits

BUT WHY THE WHITE SHIRT

I didn’t read the blog…. sooooo….

Call me naive, but I don’t see the ‘conformity’ part of it, really. Perhaps at a really, really shallow level… …and at a really, really deep level…

White sybolizes purity, in our culture. Those who administer in the sacrament, foster the impression or belief of the Saints that as they partake, they are cleansed of their sins. It’s just helpful. Call it a mind-game, but I think it’s serious stuff, myself.

Those that preside, I think it’s a similar deal. By wearing white (‘righteous’ ‘pure’) shirts, they foster belief in the Saints that they are God’s representatives. I think a lot of members need all the help they can get in believing that. And it’s not to just keep the powerful in power, but to work on the minds and hearts of the faithful so that the Church can accomplish it’s role as a way to bring the Saints to God.

Has anyone heard of anyone not getting a temple recommend for

a) not wearing a white shirt to meetings

b) having more than one pair of earings for women (or ANY earings for men)

c) having tattoos

also what are your thoughts on these things, how important are they to our salvation,

a) nope (except if in direct oppositional defiance of leader’s directions to do so)

b) same as above

c) never

I think that as we resist the desires of “the brethren”, we show we are not meek and humble. Whether *they* are meek and humble is not the issue, for us.

HiJolly

My only addition is that I actually like the white shirt standard for the sacrament administration. I see the sacrament as a continuation, if you will, of baptism – and I like the idea of those who administer it wearing white for the symbolism. I would absolutely allow someone to wear a non-white shirt if they didn’t own one and couldn’t afford one (and that was covered in the recent GC talk), but I just like the symbolism.

Now, if a leader were to try to extend that to ALL men who attend ALL meetings, I would have a problem with that. That’s just hedging around the law, and I don’t like that concept.

A very short post I just wrote two days ago deals with exactly that issue:

http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/02/inspiration-vs-imposition-inclusion-vs.html

I know that E. Oaks has talked about these things frequently, including at conferences. Guidelines were made as a request, not a rule, and they are not asked in TR interviews, nor are they an indication of unworthiness.

E. Oaks was a judge by profession, and perhaps as a result of that occupation is a big believer that dress and outward appearance are important in ways that those of us in other professions might not agree. Consider a courtroom – the judge wears a robe which gives the judge the authority and power to make decisions impartially; the focus is on the role and not the person. You wouldn’t want a judge who shows up in board shorts and a tee shirt (unless you knew that person was a great judge by reputation). The judge’s robes are an integral part of his or her authority and in making that person subordinate to the role they are playing. By conforming, they are also in a sense protecting their identity. In a courtroom, defendants don’t come in dressed as they normally would in real life. Their lawyers make them dress conservatively, to portray their trustworthiness to a judge and jury, to show them in their best light, and to make it more difficult to imagine that person committing the heinous crime being described. (This isn’t necessarily true in lesser courts which are more casual – I’m basing this on Law & Order, not Night Court).

Honestly, I’m not sure I buy it. I tend to value diversity above conformity. But I can see why someone from that profession would feel that way.

I have been an active member since the 1960s, which explains why I feel acutely uncomfortable when I turn up to church wearing anything other than a suit, white shirt, and tie. It feels tantamount to rocking up smoking a Cuban cigar. Such is the power of culture.

However, I’m delighted that the Church is finally waking up to the idea that people around the world don’t and shouldn’t all groom themselves in the same way — and that our individual spirituality isn’t an outcome of our appearance. The pandemic did a great job in helping to finally dismantle objections about facial hair that crept in around the 1960s to offer a clean-cut alternative to the drug culture. I hope there will continue to be a shift away from our obsession with certain styles of clothing and grooming. My wife even feels comfortable enough these days to dispense with a skirt or dress on Sundays — and she’s the Relief Society President. I mean, seriously, women can’t wear trousers/pants to church? How absurd is that?

By way of reminder, the General Handbook now states:

38.8.14

“Members of the Church are encouraged to show respect for the body in their choices about appropriate dress and appearance. What is appropriate varies across cultures and for different occasions. For example, for sacrament meeting, individuals wear their best available Sunday clothing to show respect for the sacrament ordinance. This same principle applies to temple attendance. Disciples of Jesus Christ will know how best to dress and groom themselves.”

The final sentence is my new mantra.

I hadn’t been at church since COVID hit and the services closed down. I went 1x in November to support my husband and children (reasons).

Both my eldest and myself wore pants that Sunday (mostly because we like pants more then dresses/skirts, and us going was a decision made roughly 20-25 minutes before we all headed out the door) and my husband was fine with it as part of his efforts to support us being comfortable at church (a pleasant surprise).

I got more looks of surprise that I was there than anything.

QUASI-RELATED TOPIC:

I gave birth to my youngest in our bathroom naked (mostly because I didn’t have the brain cells to think through “what to wear” while giving birth). I managed to send my husband for 1 of his big t-shirts for me (bright blue “angry birds” shirt I would not normally wear) to put on post-delivery while my baby was still attached to me with the cord before the EMT’s arrived. The loose dress I had planned to wear to the hospital once I got out of the bathroom hadn’t survived the encounter with delivering my baby, so that wasn’t an option. I wasn’t thinking too clearly (loosing blood and all that) – so I got as far as “big shirt”.

After the EMT’s arrived and we disconnected my daughter from myself, I think we threw a towel around my waist and then I started the 30 feet trek out of the bathroom. The EMT’s flanked me front and back (the baby had already been handed off to my husband), so when I fainted from blood loss after about 10 feet or so, they caught me. When I became conscious, they helped me out of our house and onto a stretcher where were hoards of male emergency people (like 5-10 more) in our yard. I presume that the towel held, someone draped a blanket, or that there was some creative shirt draping and that my “human shields” also provided “fig services”. I don’t think that there was underwear because of the cord still connected to me.

I remember being aware of all the people and that I wasn’t “dressed for success” basically. I also decided that I didn’t and couldn’t give a care because by golly, I had just delivered a baby, so I was going to look like a victorious, immodest new-mom wreck (and everyone else could just deal)

The experience of being mostly naked in my front yard with lots of guys watching me (for a legitimate reason) has set a really high bar on “being embarrassed because of what I am wearing” – just sayin’.

Tie in – Judgement for what I am wearing (or not wearing) no longer phases me. I was “modestly dressed” for the occasion, all things considered. While I will dress with respect while going to church or other functions, “modesty” has more to do with being appropriately clothed for the experience then anything else.

The white shirt really is mostly a cultural thing it seems. In my YSA ward we often get men passing the sacrament meeting in black shirts sometimes.

Yes, it is a very cultural thing. Which is why it bothers me all the more to hear how the white of the shirt represents Jesus (as if Jesus can’t be represented by other colors).

[It is interesting to me that a few years back they changed missionary dress allowing shirts other than white. Yet, I have yet to see one wearing anything but white.

That’s news to me. I know a few years back they allowed missionaries to wear pants that weren’t black but I haven’t heard that they were allowed to wear shirts that weren’t white.

I saw missionaries wearing pants that weren’t black within a week of that announcement.

I served a mission in a country where suits weren’t allowed. Same reason. There was one difference though, we were told to bring one suitcoat that was to be used in the MTC and for air travel to/from the mission. Our suit coats went in storage in the mission office when we arrived and we got them back when we left.

I can’t imagine what my MTC experience would have been like if we were told not to bring a suitcoat at all. I can easily imagine getting stopped by a leader every few minutes to get onto us for not wearing one. I can’t imagine that leader being swayed by a, “But my mission president said not to bring one.”

That was decades ago though, and times change.