Stuff That Is NOT Doctrine

[Anonymous]

Anyway, unfortunately, in our ward, they made it a requirement to wear white shirts while passing and blessing the sacrament. Unfortunately, the single adult branch I used to go to also made that a requirement.

[Anonymous]

As we have said repeatedly, ALL members are cafeteria / buffet Mormons – and the white shirt and tie example is a great one. The people who are setting that rule are ignoring the handbook of instructions and an apostle when they do it.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Shawn wrote:

He looks very thoughtful and weighed down in my picture. He’s a very interesting character. However, I am actually changing the picture tomorrow so stay tuned :wtf:

Oh no, I always find avatar changes confusing. (He says, with none).

Ha – me, too!

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Where did men not having facial hair in the church and men only allowed to wear white shirts at church come from? No wonder members are leaving the church. Why doesn’t Christ just appear to others and tell them, “That’s not required for salvation! So stop teaching it!” Hahaha!

I wanted to know myself, so I did some research. I can’t find exact dates for when the BYU honor code was updated, but Wikipedia says:

Quote:

In the 1960s, several rules regarding longer hairstyles in men were introduced as a result of the many liberal movements occurring around the country. However, long hair and beards were not completely against the rules until the mid-1970s.

The April 1971 issue of the Priesthood Bulletin issued by the First Presidency stated:

Quote:

With increasing frequency the Missionary Executive Committee receives missionary recommendations accompanied by photographs of young men with beards, moustaches, long sideburns, and long hair.

Bishops and stake presidents are requested to advise young men who may be considered for missions that the nature of the missionary calling is such that we must insist that those who are called and who serve in the field shall be clean-shaven and that their hair shall be neatly trimmed.

In that same year, Dallin H. Oaks talked about grooming in his first address as BYU president and the talk was printed in the December, 1971 New Era. He said:

Quote:

I am weary of having young people tell me how most of our Church leaders in earlier times wore beards and long hair, which shows that these are not inherently evil…Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic…

There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude…

In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture.

So far, we have covered only missionaries and BYU students. The first mention of beards from a president of the church (as far I can tell) is also found in an address to BYU students. In 1973, Harold B. Lee talked about a letter he received:

Quote:

I quote only a paragraph: “Tomorrow my husband will shave off his long, full beard. Because of the request of the stake president and your direction in the Priesthood Bulletin, he must not have the appearance of evil or rebellion if he is to get a recommend to go to the temple. I have wept anguished tears; the faces of Moses and Jacob were bearded, and to me the wisdom and spirituality of the old prophets reflected from the face of my own spiritual husband.”

Part of Brother Lee’s response to the letter was:

Quote:

“Now, in your letter you tell me that you are saddened because with the shaving off of the beard and the cutting of the hair, which, to you, made your husband appear as the prophets Moses and Jacob, he would no longer bear that resemblance. I wonder if you might not be wiser to think of following the appearance of the prophets of today. President David O. McKay had no beard or long hair; neither did President Joseph Fielding Smith; and neither does your humble servant whom you have acknowledged as the Lord’s prophet…

Why is it that you want your husband to look like Moses and Jacob, rather than to look like the modern prophets to whom you are expressing allegiance? If you will give this sober thought, your tears will dry, and you’ll begin to have some new thoughts.”

He then provided the following counsel to the students:

Quote:

Keep your eye upon those who preside in the Church today, or tomorrow, and pattern your life after them rather than to dwell upon how ancient prophets may have looked or thought or spoken, because if you really believe what you say, you will honor the one who presides today as a prophet, seer, and revelator. For the Lord gives to his leaders in their own dispensation and their own time the things that he would have given to his church for the guidance of his people in this present day.

The first mention I found in General Conference is in the April, 1977 conference, when Victor L. Brown quoted the above story told by Brother Lee.

An article in the February, 1993 Ensign says:

Quote:

Church leaders, recognizing that fashions go in cycles, are sensitive to the rich cultural diversity within the Church. For example, they have recently held that clean, neatly trimmed and managed beards and long hair for men—as well as certain other fashions that to some might seem “trendy”—are acceptable for the temple, provided they are not inherently offensive or vulgar.

I hear that temple workers can’t have facial hair, but I don’t know if that’s true. I read that those who don’t have official callings in the temple and help out sometimes can have a beard.

I really don’t believe guys in bishoprics are prohibited from having facial hair. Stake presidencies and high councilors might say otherwise, but it’s not official. A mustached man in my ward recently became a coucilor to the bishop and I am happy to report he has not shaved it. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS IN HANDBOOK 1, IF ANYTHING.

(I think there’s a history of white shirts somewhere on this board.)

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Anyway, unfortunately, in our ward, they made it a requirement to wear white shirts while passing and blessing the sacrament. Unfortunately, the single adult branch I used to go to also made that a requirement.

I would speak up about that because it’s not right.

Old-Timer wrote:

As we have said repeatedly, ALL members are cafeteria / buffet Mormons – and the white shirt and tie example is a great one. The people who are setting that rule are ignoring the handbook of instructions and an apostle when they do it.

Ray is right. Handbook 2 says:

Quote:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

[Anonymous]

I found a very interesting paper titled Excessive Formalities in the Mormon Sacrament, 1928–1940 by Justin R. Bray, who “is an archivist at the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. This paper, an outgrowth of his research on the Lord’s Supper in the Mormon Church, was written while finishing his degree in history at Brigham Young University in 2011.”

He explains that young men in the 1930s were sloppy when passing the sacrament. Local leaders had them wear white shirts and black ties. Other things were implemented:

Quote:

In some wards deacons were to simultaneously arise and strictly “march” to and from the sacrament table, keeping the arms that handle the trays at right angles. While waiting for the tray to be returned to them at each row, the deacons were to “stand erect with arms folded in front of them,” in order to avoid distracting the congregation. Many wards began to implement even more stringent and detail-attentive rules. In some wards, the deacons lined up to receive specific assignments according to their height.

Eventually, things had to be fixed. A blog post titled The Old Written Order of Things quotes the 1941 Aaronic Priesthood Handbook:

Quote:

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the very essence of simplicity and truth. The Church which bears His name must resist the introduction of formalities that may lead to ritual and imposing ceremony…In the administration of the Sacrament, while it is very desirable that the clothing and the general appearance of those who administer and pass it should be very neat, clean and appropriate, it is not desirable to require such uniformity in dress and action as to smack of formalism. Though white shirts and dark ties for the young men are proper, it should not be required that all be exactly alike in dress and general appearance…there should not be any requirement as to the posture or action while passing the Sacrament, such as carrying the left hand behind the back or maintaining stiffness in walking or any tendency toward military order in action.

Dang, I wish priesthood meetings didn’t smack of formalism.

[Anonymous]

I can understand the church wanting its members to be neat and clean standing apartment from the world, but sometimes the church pushes that too far by acting more like the Pharisees from the Bible. I used to be when other Christians were being anti that they were just full of it. Now after my faith crisis I believe in some ways they’re right.

[Anonymous]

Here is stuff I’ve heard repeated oft that is not doctrine:

1. Leaders are always inspired.

2. Happiness comes from holding a TR.

3. Any two people who are living the gospel can have a successful marriage.

4. If you turn your back on the gospel, your career will fail, you will lose your family and your life will fall apart.

[Anonymous]

Doctrine, tradition or cultural conformity. Is there really a difference? They all come from the same source that is men. So I do not see the distinction

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

4. If you turn your back on the gospel, your career will fail, you will lose your family and your life will fall apart.

I am still, in part, afraid of this. It’s one of the things that holds me in.

I’m trying to let go of that irrational fear and to stay because I want to and not because I fear the implications.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Doctrine, tradition or cultural conformity. Is there really a difference? They all come from the same source that is men. So I do not see the distinction

The reason different doctrines or LDS cultural expectations are definitely not all the same is mostly because of their relative outward visibility and the level of importance generally attached to them in the Church. So regardless of where they came from and how much truth there is behind them or not the main practical distinction between different ideas we hear in the Church when dealing with other Mormons is the question of what will happen if you don’t believe in and/or don’t go along with some of these established doctrines and expectations.

For example, I don’t believe the official LDS doctrine that there was supposedly literally a man named Adam that showed up on earth in a relatively civilized state around 4000 BC and before that there were no other men around so all people are physical descendents of this one man and his wife Eve. However, this is what some Church leaders and members would refer to as a doctrine that is not essential for salvation because you don’t really need to know that much about it or do anything about it to fit in with other Mormons fairly well so as long as you keep any doubts about it to yourself and don’t worry too much about it then it doesn’t really need to be much of an issue in the Church.

On the other hand, if I get a tattoo of a cross you can bet that the next time I go swimming with my family or in-laws some of them will almost certainly freak out and make a big deal out of it even though I wouldn’t call these traditional taboos LDS doctrines at all as much as the opinions of a few Church leaders that have now been incorporated in the mostly “unwritten order of things” that Mormons are supposed to frown on and discourage. Probably the single most difficult doctrine to disobey regularly at this point without being viewed as an outsider is the WoW because there is a specific temple recommend interview question to directly ask about it and other members are likely to notice and generally disapprove if you break any of these rules without going out of your way to hide it from them.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Here is stuff I’ve heard repeated oft that is not doctrine:

1. Leaders are always inspired.

2. Happiness comes from holding a TR.

3. Any two people who are living the gospel can have a successful marriage.

4. If you turn your back on the gospel, your career will fail, you will lose your family and your life will fall apart.

Interesting list. I think number 3 is usually true, but how can anyone know if both individuals in a marriage are really living the gospel?

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Doctrine, tradition or cultural conformity. Is there really a difference? They all come from the same source that is men. So I do not see the distinction

I still believe true doctrine comes from God.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Cadence wrote:

Doctrine, tradition or cultural conformity. Is there really a difference? They all come from the same source that is men. So I do not see the distinction

I still believe true doctrine comes from God.

How do you make the distinction?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

How do you make the distinction?

Yup, that’s the $64million question – and why we have to honor every individual’s right to make that call and value diversity of opinion about it.

[Author]

Posts