Church policy: look like us or get out

[creator]

Thank-you BrentL for making sense of this subject. :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

[drjme]

My sons always wore ties. I told them it was respectful.

I hate ties. I never wear them. I despise them. I went out and bought white shirts with no collar just so I don't have to wear them. I am also quick to put on a sweater - even during the summer if I have to - to avoid them.

Ties are evil, horrid things. I wish they didn't exist.

I agree with mingano, they are nothing but a cultural thing. Ties are respectful...that makes me lol. many other cultural wards don't wear ties, In the islands and other countries where Islanders have immigrated to (including western nations) the men wear a Lavalava to church, which is like a dress. what a person wears to church (within the bounds of being 'chaste') has nothing to do with what they may experience spiritually, more so about someone taking a legalistic stance on how they think things should be to make the experience or moreso 'tradition' right for themselves.

[Fiannan]

If only....

=)) =)) =))

or...



http://hustleandflow.blogg.se/2011/march/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is just so LDS image!

[creator]

Join the No Necktie Club today...

[BroJones]

Do you think that Jesus will wear a tie to the great meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman?
(PS -- not that it matters; that is the point!)

[linj2fly]

....
OR, he could have returned and been an example to his friends and the church could grow in different communities.

Sad story.

Think about the hypocrisy for a minute. You ask him to sacrifice a social custom, only to take part in another social custom. Why ask a person to do something you are not willing to do?

Well said, ATL Wake.

Yes, The crux of it all is that this is not like asking him to refrain from something like say- taking delight in murder. See Alma 17:14-16. There is no testimony, nor doctrine, nor repentence here. It is simply the white shirt-a-fication of a native people by a cultural construct based in Western business attire. There is no testimony in this. It cannot sustain itself and the youth and young adults have it figured out. We are losing our youth and young adults when we demand a culturally constructed dress code and forget the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.

Oh ye gentiles!

Could it be b/c we correctly teach them from a young age to act like this:

We should always think about how others feel. We should be kind to everyone, as Jesus was. He loves all of us. It doesn’t matter how we look—if our clothes are different, if our hair is different, if there is something different about the way we walk or the way we do things. It doesn’t matter if we come from another country or speak a different language. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ love every single one of us. They love me and They love you.
Cheryl Lant, former primary president
http://www.lds.org/friend/2006/03/frien ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so it's confusing when things like the OP happen, or worthy YM are excluded from passing the sacrament b/c they aren't wearing a white shirt and tie (which exclusionary practice is contrary to the handbook of instructions. see wolfman's post on pg 1.) Yes, it is recommended and we can encourage the YM to do so, but... when we hold to 'rules' (not talking about doctrine here) so rigidly that we exclude the Lord's sheep then we are being like, dare I say, the Zoramites. :-s

[Fiannan]

It is sad that in any social institution there is a tendency for orthodoxy. From my understanding the whole white shirt thing was based on a statement from GBH that a priesthood holder should AT LEAST try to wear something nice like a white shirt to church. It did not seem to exclude wearing otehr colors or a sweater or whatever. However that has since turned into an LDS societal doctrine that ONLY a white shirt is appropriate to wear to our services.

I can try to find the quote but at least one prophet warned against such requirements because it made us look too much like religious institutions that made ritual and attire the most important aspect that defined them. I will see if I can find it.

[Alpine]

http://hustleandflow.blogg.se/2011/march/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is just so LDS image!

=)) Funny thing... this guy is gay! How is THAT for LDS image?

Gay or not I'll take him! :YMDAYDREAM:

[AussieOi]

seriously, i am captain anti authority
i dont shave on weekends, dont ever wear a jacket and so on
not letting a kid come for his hair is just stupid
even if it was the kids attitude with the hair,not even a cultural thing, this is the VERY kid we want coming.
i never tell my kids what to wear
i wear a (at least predominately) white shirt because i believe to myself i am at least making an effort to look tidy.
id rather an ironed green smock than an unironed white shirt
for me its not the shirt the tie the shoes or whatever, its the attitude of me or whatever the person who is wearing what ever BROUGHT them to church that day

they are there!

we had a kid we needed to bless the sacrament
he sat down didnt have a tie one of the dads in row one threw it to him
he put it on no drama, all good
it means nothing, but it was the slippery slope thing
for us and the kids in teh ward blessing the sacrament had a degree of cultural respect
if it were a country where you had a pen in your pocket maybe we'd do that
as long as it doesnt detract from the sacrament itself, which it didnt

i see the new chinese in our wards and the women NEVER wear a dress
at what point do they look around and think hey, why do ALL the women wear a skirt/ dress
at what point do they see conformity on a basic nature as important?

this is not to say it needs to be a certain type, style, colour, length. just, a dress

i see no problem with a culture that has the men in a white shirt with a tie

i DO see a big problem with a culture that has the men thinking they have to wear a jacket or they aren't righteous

thats tick a box mormonism, and we have to much of that already

[investigator]

"When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, then God will endow us with power from on high." Ezra Taft Benson - Ensign, May 1998, p.81 ...

[durangout]

"Church Policy: Look like us or get out".






Sounds like a good plan to me.

[durangout]

[quote="BlueMoon5][/quote]

I suspect it is "nothing" to those who have difficulty accepting inspired counsel; hence, your comments are unwittingly self-disclosing.[/quote]

Exactly Blue. it is "nothing" just as having a smoke is nothing; lust like going boating on Sunday is "nothing"; just like taking advantage of someone is "nothing"; just like porn is "nothing"; just like teh real estate scams were "nothing"...

It is really very simple. Some people are wheat and some people are tares. Only God will make that determination, BUT our everyday actions do a pretty good job of shouting to the world which we are.

[BlueMoon5]

You make a quintessential non sequitur; i.e., 1) our leaders have encouraged us to dress "up" for Church meetings; 2) they have not said, subsequent to that counsel, that a non-compliant person must "get out." Item 2) does not follow from 1), but I give you credit for a rich imagination.

: I have not made anything but the observation that regardless of (insert argument of your choice) that the end result is
look like us or get out.

That is an end result wholly of your choosing; you created it. It is not the result, I'm reasonably certain, of anything any one in authority has said to you. The sad fact is that some people are waiting to be wounded. . .waiting for an excuse to take offense.

: so many posts on this thread seek to change the issue. your silly posit that I am making a quintessential non sequitur does not address the problem. . . .

ah contrae, it establishes the fact that dressing "differently" for a Church meeting does not elicit a "get out" response from anyone in authority. The "get out" phenomenon exists solely in your mind, probably because you know you are violating that which is conventionally desirable; in other words, you self-indict. Has a bishop or a bishop's counselor ever ordered you to leave the chapel because of how you were dressed?

: if you say, for example "is that too much to ask" then you are furthing the problem. you are not addressing it.

What responsibility do you have to address the problem?

: you are in effect supporting "you need to look like us or your not welcome because "THATS NOT TO MUCH TO ASK'

Who, in authority, has told you that "you need to look like us or you're not welcome because 'THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK'"? Name the ward and its location. If that did, in fact, happen, that bishop acted in error. If it wasn't a bishop who supposedly told you that, he/she acted without authority.

: well, the problem is NOT centered on IF IT IS TOO MUCH TO ASK. the problem is

= look like us or get out

I have already addressed this. Name the position of the person who told you to "get out," as well as the ward.

: if you say

"the church has a right to have standards"

you are furthering the problem, you are not addressing it.

So you seek membership in a church that as no standards. . .that upholds no principles. . .that encourages you to just "do your own thing."
Sounds to me like a waste of time.

: you are in effect supporting " the church has a right to have standards"

Absolutely. From whence, in heaven's name, do you get the loopy idea that the LDS Church should be devoid of standards?

: well, the problem is NOT centered on IF THE CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE STANDARDS. the problem is

= look like us or get out.

That false mantra is of your manufacture--not the Church's; you own it.

: telling me that I dont get it.. does not address the problem. the problem is large enough that EVERYONE KNOWS IT EXISTS. its not like we dont have 10 thousand threads about it and that this thread was started by an external source and that we KNOW it is an issue. but hey, who cares right. if you cant conform its your problem, because, hell, its really not too much to ask.

[/quote]

The problem is that you do not want to comply with the policies of the LDS Church, and--yes--that is your problem. If it's too much to ask you to dress appropriately for church meetings, it is reasonable to assume that you feel it's too much to ask you to pay a full tithing. . .too much to ask you to fast one day a month. . .too much to ask you to accept a calling. . .too much to ask you to hold family home evening. . .too much to ask you to attend the temple at least once a month. . .too much to ask you to be a home teacher. . .too much to ask you to pay fast offerings. . .too much to ask you to contribute to the Perpetual Education Fund. . .too much to ask you to serve at the cannery or your local Deseret Industries facility--ah, yes, it's all just too much to ask of you.

[tmac]

Seems like a lot of Mote and Beam Disease going on here.

[MelissaM]

I think "casting your eyes upon the serpent" was an example where Moses related the will if the Lord to the people and they were expected to follow " the letter of the law" or perish. It seemed a pretty easy thing to do but yet some of the people could follow that simple direction. Maybe they thought Moses was making or up or maybe they thought the Lord didn't know what He was doing or maybe Satan put it into their minds that they were being blind sheeple. Whatever the reason many perished. Please note the Spirit did not guide the people here - the word of the lord through His prophet
Maybe because I found the Lords Restored Church when I was an adult, I do not take having a prophet as a light thing. I am very grateful, especially with the terrible judgements soon coming our way. I am thankful to have the safety of the Lords guide in these troubled times.

Actually, I think Alma clarifies this quite explicitly:

Alma 33
18 But behold, this is not all; these are not the only ones who have spoken concerning the Son of God.

19 Behold, he was spoken of by Moses; yea, and behold a type was raised up in the wilderness, that whosoever would look upon it might live. And many did look and live.

20 But few understood the meaning of those things, and this because of the hardness of their hearts. But there were many who were so hardened that they would not look, therefore they perished. Now the reason they would not look is because they did not believe that it would heal them.

21 O my brethren, if ye could be healed by merely casting about your eyes that ye might be healed, would ye not behold quickly, or would ye rather harden your hearts in unbelief, and be slothful, that ye would not cast about your eyes, that ye might perish?

22 If so, wo shall come upon you; but if not so, then cast about your eyes and begin to believe in the Son of God, that he will come to redeem his people, and that he shall suffer and die to atone for their sins; and that he shall rise again from the dead, which shall bring to pass the resurrection, that all men shall stand before him, to be judged at the last and judgment day, according to their works.

23 And now, my brethren, I desire that ye shall plant this word in your hearts, and as it beginneth to swell even so nourish it by your faith. And behold, it will become a tree, springing up in you unto everlasting life. And then may God grant unto you that your burdens may be light, through the joy of his Son. And even all this can ye do if ye will. Amen.


The entire point of having a prophet is to have someone point us to Christ. We have men called as prophets. It's up to us to have the Spirit always with us to discern truth from error regardless of their calling. Most of us would rather unscripturally "Follow the Prophet." It's easier. The belief is that there is no accountability there. So we have so many focusing on PR things like white shirts and ties and outward appearance while the Lord is also explicitly clear:

1 Samuel 16:7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

When we as a people focus on these outward appearance things that turn the weak away from us and break those who would meet with us, how should it be handled?
Should it become dogma and should we rejoice in the losses because they aren't chosen anyway?
Where is our focus?

[pritchet1]

Remember what Hugh Nibley said in 1973 “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.“

[Fiannan]

Remember what Hugh Nibley said in 1973 “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.“

+1

[pritchet1]

What about those who are buried in their temple clothes?

[linj2fly]

Worth repeating:

That isn't church policy. This is church policy copied and pasted from handbook 2( which is why they wrote it, some people haven't bothered to read Alma 32): "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."

Pharisees; they had 'em in their day, we have 'em in ours.....just laugh or you're gonna cry!

This policy is clearly NOT exclusionary. The ONLY exclusionary practices in our doctrine involve SIN. This policy is in harmony with that.

BM5--your assumption of BrentL was actually quite unreasonable. It is quite a stretch to go from appearances/cultural norms to matters of doctrinal obedience/salvation.

[marc]

Although, for sake of discussion, did not Jesus Christ dress as a Nazarene, with parted hair according to their tradition? Was he not respectful of their laws and traditions, corrupt as they may be?

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

I agree that looking like an army of white shirts and ties at General Conference is more tradition than anything else, it is what has been asked of us. There are days when I don't wear a tie or even a suit, but for the most part, I do. But that is just me. Now I'm not saying that our General Authorities are hypocrites nor am I accusing them of anything so please don't take my post as such. My only focus is on the underlined portion of the scripture cited. Just my two cents.

[wolfman]

May I add: When I made the comment "Pharisees; they had 'em in their day, we have 'em in ours" I was not referring to the brethren or the handbook. I was referring to others who look beyond the mark. How could anyone deny that there are indeed modern day Pharisees?
I believe it was Elder Oaks who gave a great talk on not doing more than is required of you (or less for that matter) such as paying a 15% tithing, tying chocolate and white bread into the WoW, etc. I believe in his talk he said that if continually insist on doing more than is required you will become prideful and fall away from the church because you will feel you are holier than others.

[MelissaM]

Although, for sake of discussion, did not Jesus Christ dress as a Nazarene, with parted hair according to their tradition? Was he not respectful of their laws and traditions, corrupt as they may be?

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

I agree that looking like an army of white shirts and ties at General Conference is more tradition than anything else, it is what has been asked of us. There are days when I don't wear a tie or even a suit, but for the most part, I do. But that is just me. Now I'm not saying that our General Authorities are hypocrites nor am I accusing them of anything so please don't take my post as such. My only focus is on the underlined portion of the scripture cited. Just my two cents.

Marc,

There is mistranslation in Matthew 23. The Community of Christ Church had the manuscripts for the Inspired Version. We have only part of it in the JST- most if which was published in the Times and Seasons and Millenial Star in our scriptures labelled at the JST.

Robert J Matthews has the distinction of being the first person from the LDS Church allowed by the Community of Christ to work with the original manuscript of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which was in their possession. He was a principal collaborator involved in compiling the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and authored articles on the Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
Here is a side by side comparison of the KJV and the IV bibles:
http://deseretbook.com/Complete-Joseph- ... /i/4931236" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew 23 should read :
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.

2 All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, they will make you observe and do; for they are ministers of the law, and they make themselves your judges. But do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.

3 For they bind heavy burdens and lay on men's shoulders, and they are grievous to be borne; but they will not move them with one of their fingers.

[marc]

Thank you, Melissa. That does change things.

[BroJones]

Right, Wolfman. Stated another way, the problem is that some THINK they know what Church policy is ("white shirts and ties to pass the Sacrament") when in reality, that is NOT the policy at all. The policy is clearly written in the handbook,

"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.

[MelissaM]

For all who claim it not happening I submit my experience of the ridiculous:

Several weeks ago I was told to my face by the Young Women's president who has a son several months older than my eldest. "I would rather he not attend if he is not going to wear a white shirt."

So there you have it. It is a prevalent attitude in my ward. At least 3 people have either dropped a white shirt off at my door, offered to purchase, or offered to lend.

Some months ago, in my presence, the Bishop sat my son down and told him that the regional representative has made the demand for a white shirt, and would he please be obedient for obedience sake. (I was not aware of Handbook 2's statements at the time).

My son is barred from passing the sacrament, but sets up and breaks down each Sunday.

He gets it. Not doctrinal. At this point, I wonder if he just likes that blue shirt and tie because it makes them all squirm.

He is a great kid. 16 and not dating because he told me it is a big responsibility and he is not ready yet. (In my home we do not date for social reasons. Dating is marriage seeking.) 16 and not yet a Priest because he is taking it very seriously (did the same thing when he turned 14 with becoming a teacher).

He is clean cut because he wants to be (had long hair from age 9 to 11). Unpierced and untattooed (Not that that matters) He goes to Church on his own on Sundays that I have to work. Very sober minded and always has been. He is one that they would run out of town on a rail.

Is a Man's soul worth a white shirt?