- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The suit, white shirt and tie are generally considered today to be the ‘Uniform of the Priesthood.’ Thousands of deacons, teachers and priests don their shirts and ties each Sunday in which to perform their priesthood duties. Melchizedek Priesthood Leaders are required to wear a suit as well. The church considers this attire as the pinnacle of dressing up. Leaders wear suits to give the office the dignity it deserves. Missionaries wear the same uniform as part of their calling and are highly recognizable because of it. The origin of the men’s suit is surprising. The suit, with its practical jacket and long pants has existed for hundreds of years, but prior to Ben Franklin and the American Revolution, it was the attire of the common working man. Proper gentry wore the waistcoat, breeches and other such impractical and uncomfortable wear as were suited to the position and status of the idle rich. One simply couldn’t work the fields or the woodwright shop in such clothing.
The suit was the hallmark of the common laborer. It afforded more protection from the elements and the working environment. It was Ben Franklin in his role as ambassador, who first made the fashion splash by arriving in Paris at age 70 wearing a plain brown suit. This was to be indicative of the simple, yet dignified common man of the New World. The men’s fashion world has never been the same. The suit replaced the waistcoat and breeches. The cause of the common man burned across France and the rest of Europe. Gentility was never the same again.
Over the generations, we forgot the meaning of the suit and its common heritage. It came to be a symbol of respectability, and really became the high end of the array of clothing choices for men, rather than retaining its ties to the common man. The modern suit and its role in the church came about during the administration of Heber J. Grant. The dark suit has continued as a church standard to this day, with the light suit making a brief appearance during the administration of David O. McKay.
Society has continued to shift. The suit itself has become a rather uncommon article of menswear. Even in the business world, its use is greatly reduced. It is now only commonly worn at the upper levels of business, by the mortician, by the lawyer, by high level salespersons and in the upper levels of government. What were the Wall Street CEOs wearing during the Senate Hearings on the financial crisis? The suit. I do not know how many others feel this way, but my instinct now, when I see someone in a suit, is to grab hold of my wallet and hold on tight. Those wearing suits are becoming icons of mistrust. I was actually told by a supervisor as I toured some rural offices that the worst thing I could do is wear a tie.
My other thought is that one of the things that the LDS Church was eager to get away from was the priestly vestments used by the catholic and other churches. I think the reason was to get away from the class distinctions between the priesthood and the members and from the opulence that they had come to represent. If you think about it though, these vestments were adopted when that sort of attire was more or less the norm. It was society changing around the church that made the vestments so odd.
So, now to tie this together, I’m thinking the same thing is happening regarding the suit. It is a mode of dress that has seen its peak, and is now starting to mean something far different than its original intent. My wondering is whether we will stay with the iconic suit, or adapt as society changes. Does is become a mistrusted symbol and something that hurts missionary efforts, rather than helps it? Only time will tell.
Interesting history lesson, and I would agree that white shirt and suit has become what it was originally intended to replace. There was a lot of discussion recently about “white shirts” titled The Unwritten Order of Thingswhich is located just a few topics below this one. That is interesting. I sometimes kid my husband about how ties were 1st like bibs. 
Mark Twain said something like “Clothes make the man…so naked people have no influence.” I do think that clothes tend to classify people in a sort of caste system…not exactly “one-heart-one mind” kind of zion. At the same time, we must live & get a long in this world & how we dress speaks volumes.
I was just watching an old show & was amazed at how the women’s clothing were sooooooo different than now…yet the men were pretty much the same old suit & tie. It does make you wonder how long the suit & tie will continue on…& what (if anything) would take its place. (Hopefully something!
Interesting thread…both of them. Whan I was an active member of the mainstram church, I recall an older couple who were rather poor. They wore clothes that were many years out-of-style and drove an old car worth about $300. They stopped coming after a year or so and I’ve often wondered if they just felt uncomfortable.
And what about the gospel spreading into 3rd world countries?…are they expected to conform to Western ideas of what you’re “supposed” to wear on Sunday? What about native american males (or any other male for that matter) who wish to wear their hair long?
The gospel tells us not to judge others by appearances. I think we’re doing a very poor job of complying with that.
Having missionaries dress like they do might project the desired appearance of conservativism, but how many people does it “turn off” simply because they would never dress that way?
Good food for thought…
That’s some pretty neat analysis. Perhaps this is indeed happening again. Obviously the leaders are trying to present a classy, unified front by which they can be recognized as servants of Christ. I know some people think this is arrogant of them. I’m not in that camp. I think they’re just trying to do their best to be presentable.
I wonder what the alternative would be? Should the church create it’s own “uniform” for the leaders? Not sure this would be better. Should they just allow leaders to wear whatever they want? I can’t see that happening. Perhaps a dress standard that is sort of “business casual” would be more appropriate. Not sure.
Honestly, I am torn on this one. As a general rule in industrialized countries, I don’t want flip-flops, tank tops, jean shorts, etc. for worship service – and I don’t want polos, khakis, capris, etc. for leaders. I’m not a big fan of suits, since they can be used so easily as socio-economic markers, but I still want members to express worshipful respect in the way they dress for worship services in whatever way they can – and, since our worship service is attached to our other Sunday meetings . . .
I also understand that the hardening of the dress standard occurred largely as a push back from the hippie counter-culture of the 60’s and 70’s – and I understand and can accept that, as well.
As I said, I’m torn – but I generally am OK with it IF the local leadership doesn’t go beyond the global leadership. (Sense a common theme, anyone? lol)
I think the fact the world (business world) moves towards more casual attire, that this will just reinforce the church wanting to be conservative and hold on to this dress standard as one more way they can stand out, and be peculiar as a people. (It could soon become a worthiness standard). In a lot of ways, I think this has been a big driver in the white shirt standard. The world moves away from white shirts to more color and styles, and the church moves more towards using it as a way to stand out…make the missionaries recognizable and the priesthood holders all look the same.
They may sell it as the white symbolizes purity…but it wouldn’t mean anything if everyone else wore white. It only becomes something special to a Mormon when it is “peculiar”.
Another “suit” observation… I noticed all the woman speaking in conference now wear suits. Didn’t they use to just get away with wearing a nice dress? Also in my ward the RS presidency, along with any woman who are speaking or teaching that day are always in a dress suit as well. Personally I am all for more equality of women among the church, but that doesn’t mean I want to dress like a man. Is this the new standard in leadership positions among woman? It’s the one day a week I get to dress up, and I will always choose a cute dress over a stuffy suit! It just seems to give the church even a more “corporate” feel, which I do not like. Fwiw, that doesn’t happen in my current ward or the one from which I just moved. Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, that doesn’t happen in my current ward or the one from which I just moved.
Well I’m glad to hear that this is not church wide. I am in the wrong ward… “corporate attire” in RS just doesn’t agree with me!
I generally don’t wear a suit to Church. It makes me feel like big-corporate middle management. That interferes with my spiritual experience, it intrudes so to say. I also feel oddly uncomfortable knowing there are people in the congregation, the most vulnerable in a lot of ways, who don’t own a suit or wear one. I would rather feel like I am connecting with them (in a fashion sense) instead of looking like the Stake President or the Bishop (like some figure of authority). I often don’t wear a tie, usually slacks and a button-down, long-sleeve dress shirt. Sometimes a tie. I wear a suit to Church maybe once or twice a year. I only owned 1 suit anyway until last week, which was purchased for job interviews. I haven’t worn a suit regularly to a professional office in many years, and I am an accountant. Most of the companies I have worked for have been business-casual for everyday work.
Interesting stuff here. I don’t feel comfortable in a suit. I feel like a cross between a Yuppie and a secret agent in one! What are the rules in non-Western countries? I’ve seen pictures of missionaries in Polynesia wearing those skirt like things, rather than pants, but is this normal? Seems a bit unfair in some countries. Even in Scotland, a lot of people would wear kilts to church (not the LDS but other ones).
Aside from all the history, I only wear suits when I absolutely must. I think they are too hot in the summer and not warm enough in the winter. Not to mention completely uncomfortable. Oh, and the difference between a tie and a noose is minor!! I think they’re very culture specific. They’ve become a dominant global fashion (along with jeans and t-shirts), but they’re not representative of all local traditions, and come with business and class connotations. If we go off, and convert folk in a Brazilian slum, or in the jungles of wherever, is it right to make them wear what’s basically a Western fashion? Modern suits haven’t really been around that long anyway. Sixty, seventy years, if that, and even in that time they’ve changed. My dream is to wear loose-fitting, comfortable Middle Eastern or African robes and sandles all the time some day
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.