Church policy: look like us or get out

[BroJones]

thanks for sharing this, MellisaM...
"Is a Man's soul worth a white shirt?"

NO! and I applaud the ability to follow actual policy contrary to those who THINK they know better!

Will you tell your Bishop or YW Pres what is ACTUALLY in the Handbook? could be interesting.

[BroJones]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c997ff3ff4c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

JesusTeachPharisees.jpg (69.37 KiB) Viewed 856 times

[BlueMoon5]

Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance.

Try as you might, you can't get around this pivotal statement. If the Brethren we sustain (which carries with it an obligation of obedience), recommend ties and white shirts, wouldn't it be a good idea to act on that recommendation? True, ties and white shirts are not mandatory, principally because the Brethren recognize that some families cannot afford them or they are not part of some cultures. The Church leadership expressly, and compassionately, accommodates those situations; thus, there is no credible defense for the claim that those who are unable to comply with the Church's recommendation--or even those who have the means but choose not to--are told to "get out."

That happens to be the core claim of this discussion, and it's utterly without merit.

[Elizabeth]

:-BD

[tmac]

FORM or SUBSTANCE . . . . take your pick, and assign priority accordingly.

[Juliette]

Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance.

Try as you might, you can't get around this pivotal statement. If the Brethren we sustain (which carries with it an obligation of obedience), recommend ties and white shirts, wouldn't it be a good idea to act on that recommendation? True, ties and white shirts are not mandatory, principally because the Brethren recognize that some families cannot afford them or they are not part of some cultures. The Church leadership expressly, and compassionately, accommodates those situations; thus, there is no credible defense for the claim that those who are unable to comply with the Church's recommendation--or even those who have the means but choose not to--are told to "get out."

That happens to be the core claim of this discussion, and it's utterly without merit.

Amen!

[caddis]

a truly inspired man

not

+1 Aussie.

I bet he is part of the 93 % that supports Mitt Romney....right Bob?

[Steve Clark]

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.“

Thanks for that! Added to my sig. I'm growing my hair out for Locks of Love. It's just starting to get longer than accepted Mormon standards and I am getting flack for it.

[wolfman]

Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance.

Try as you might, you can't get around this pivotal statement. If the Brethren we sustain (which carries with it an obligation of obedience), recommend ties and white shirts, wouldn't it be a good idea to act on that recommendation? True, ties and white shirts are not mandatory, principally because the Brethren recognize that some families cannot afford them or they are not part of some cultures. The Church leadership expressly, and compassionately, accommodates those situations; thus, there is no credible defense for the claim that those who are unable to comply with the Church's recommendation--or even those who have the means but choose not to--are told to "get out."

That happens to be the core claim of this discussion, and it's utterly without merit.

Amen!

There isn't anything sacred about a white shirt and tie, if it ads to the dignity of the ordinance it is purely cultural. It ads dignity to the ordinance more so than bib overalls would. There are probably Stake Presidents in Africa that wear tribal dresses and that would add just as much to the dignity for them. What if the following counsel was given: "It is recommended that you stop drinking <insert your favorite drink here> Its is not however required." Look around at the women in your ward, they usually wear nice colorful tops. How would the women feel about being limited to a white blouse because it ads to the dignity of something. Just some questions to ask yourself.

Luckily for us men this isn't general counsel. These guidelines specifically pertain to officiating in the ordinance of the sacrament NOT general church attendance.

Speaking from personal experience when I was in Iraq, the Elders of Israel did a very dignified job in administering the sacrament wearing cammies and a side arm.

[linj2fly]

BM5----the problem is exclusion, which the policy is clearly against. Further, the brethren ARE choosy about words in the handbook....recommendations and requirements ARE different (you should know). The rest of the paragraph validates this choice of words when it says it is NOT mandatory (ie, requirement). The practice of EXCLUDING YM from passing the sacrament based on a lack of a white shirt is EXPLICITLY prohibited. Further, you missed the part where financial circumstances AND maturity should be taken into account.

I don't have a problem with the 'recommendation' to where a white shirt and tie. I DO, however, have a problem with members that automatically think the lack thereof gives them the go ahead to prohibit WORTHY YM from participating in priesthod ordinances.

So...to play with the title...

The Brethren: Look like us. Me: OK
Some members: Look like us or get out. Me: What?!

See the difference yet?

[mingano]

I knew somebody a long time ago who went through exactly that. All kinds of gossip about him, rumors and back biting. Even when told that he was growing his hair for locks of love the gossipy members (who probably never understood what locks of love was anyway) still gave him grief and spread all kinds of stories about him.

[wolfman]

BM5----the problem is exclusion, which the policy is clearly against. Further, the brethren ARE choosy about words in the handbook....recommendations and requirements ARE different (you should know). The rest of the paragraph validates this choice of words when it says it is NOT mandatory (ie, requirement). The practice of EXCLUDING YM from passing the sacrament based on a lack of a white shirt is EXPLICITLY prohibited. Further, you missed the part where financial circumstances AND maturity should be taken into account.

I don't have a problem with the 'recommendation' to where a white shirt and tie. I DO, however, have a problem with members that automatically think the lack thereof gives them the go ahead to prohibit WORTHY YM from participating in priesthod ordinances.

So...to play with the title...

The Brethren: Look like us. Me: OK
Some members: Look like us or get out. Me: What?!

See the difference yet?

PERFECT

[wolfman]

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.“

Thanks for that! Added to my sig. I'm growing my hair out for Locks of Love. It's just starting to get longer than accepted Mormon standards and I am getting flack for it.

Good for you! My uncle did that after he got released from being the bishop. Don't get discouraged or feel the need to explain to other nosey individuals why you are doing it as if you need to "justify" to them having long hair. Just tell 'em you like it long, thats what I do. The right hand doesn't need to know what the left hands doing some young cancer girl somewhere will be so happy!

[SmallFarm]

I think it's kind of like a test, to see if we are obedient to the spirit of the Law:
[*]Some will be offended and stop going to church (we should still reach out to them)
[*]Some will be offended by others not following their own personal interpretation of the spirit of the Law and will therefore try and exclude them/ use unrighteous dominion over them (which will only cause them to sin).
I think the right camp to be in is to diligently follow the spirit of the Law, and not just the letter of the Law; at the same time, being patient and full of love towards those that may have a different interpretation of it. You never know, someone may have received personal revelation that tells them to grow their hair out long, or wear a blue shirt.

[Eddie Lyle]

[quote="BlueMoon5]

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.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Smoking is part of the commandment of the word of wisdom. Boating on Sunday is prohibited in the commandment to keep the sabbath day holy. Taking advantage of someone is prohibited by commandment in various places. Porn is condemned in the commandment to not commit adultery or anything like unto it and lusting in your heart. Real estate scams are prohibited under the commandments to not bear false witness and to not steal. All of these are heavy, serious prohibition commandments contained largely in the Decalogue. Wearing a white shirt is not a commandment any where in the scriptures nor has it been commanded by a prophet. So yes it is nothing. Good grief did you really condemn some one as a "tare" because of the color of their shirt? On one particular day for a block of time for three hours?

[pritchet1]

I would like to see this "recommendation" myself!

the Elders of Israel did a very dignified job in administering the sacrament wearing cammies and a side arm.

[BlueMoon5]

BM5----the problem is exclusion, which the policy is clearly against.

As you explain below, no one is excluded from administering the sacrament (blesssing or passing) because they don't have a white shirt. I have never said they should be excluded; I have said it's a good idea to follow the recommendations of Church leaders.

: Further, the brethren ARE choosy about words in the handbook....recommendations and requirements ARE different (you should know).

Well and good. You do recall, I'm sure, something about slothful servants who have to be commanded in all things.

: The rest of the paragraph validates this choice of words when it says it is NOT mandatory (ie, requirement). The practice of EXCLUDING YM from passing the sacrament based on a lack of a white shirt is EXPLICITLY prohibited.

To reiterate, I have never said nor implied nor suggested that lack of a white shirt is ground for "excluding YM from passing the sacrament." You seem bent on establishing a strawman argument.

: Further, you missed the part where financial circumstances AND maturity should be taken into account.

I did, in fact, refer to a family's financial circumstances, as well as cultural factors, although I didn't mention maturity.

: I don't have a problem with the 'recommendation' to where a white shirt and tie. I DO, however, have a problem with members that automatically think the lack thereof gives them the go ahead to prohibit WORTHY YM from participating in priesthod ordinances.

I agree, and for the nth time, I have never expressed any such thought.

: So...to play with the title...

The Brethren: Look like us. Me: OK
Some members: Look like us or get out. Me: What?!
See the difference yet?

Your construct is sheer fabrication; hence, the difference is imaginary. Who is telling members who do not dress like them to "get out"?
Any bishop who would say that to a member or even a non-member visitor, would face an unpleasant hour in the stake president's office--or something worse.

[mingano]

Your construct is sheer fabrication; hence, the difference is imaginary. Who is telling members who do not dress like them to "get out"?
Any bishop who would say that to a member or even a non-member visitor, would face an unpleasant hour in the stake president's office--or something worse.

EFY, for one... many bishops for another...

[BlueMoon5]

[quote="BlueMoon5]

. . . Smoking is part of the commandment of the word of wisdom. Boating on Sunday is prohibited in the commandment to keep the sabbath day holy. Taking advantage of someone is prohibited by commandment in various places. Porn is condemned in the commandment to not commit adultery or anything like unto it and lusting in your heart. Real estate scams are prohibited under the commandments to not bear false witness and to not steal. All of these are heavy, serious prohibition commandments contained largely in the Decalogue. Wearing a white shirt is not a commandment any where in the scriptures nor has it been commanded by a prophet. So yes it is nothing. Good grief did you really condemn some one as a "tare" because of the color of their shirt? On one particular day for a block of time for three hours?

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

The degree to which some posters to this thread have lost perspective is stultifying. Juliette makes a statement in which she reveals that she will dress her boys in white shirts and ties for Church, as recommended by our leaders. As a result of that egregious, unpardonable transgression, she is figuratively torn from limb to limb as if she were wearing a cross in a Roman coliseum.

Of course wearing a white shirt/tie is not a commandment (how many times must that be said?). Of course she has not demanded that other mothers dress their boys in white shirts and ties, though she feels that would probably be a good idea. Of course it would be fair and "Christian" to respect her decision as the boys' mother rather than to rain ridicule on her (are there any real Christians out there?).

Some folks have run off the rails over this issue, going so far as to accuse Juliette of everything from bigotry to brutality (or something like unto it). Isn't it time to give it a rest? Seriously?

[creator]

The degree to which some posters to this thread have lost perspective is stultifying. Juliette makes a statement in which she reveals that she will dress her boys in white shirts and ties for Church, as recommended by our leaders. As a result of that egregious, unpardonable transgression, she is figuratively torn from limb to limb as if she were wearing a cross in a Roman coliseum.

Of course wearing a white shirt/tie is not a commandment (how many times must that be said?). Of course she has not demanded that other mothers dress their boys in white shirts and ties, though she feels that would probably be a good idea. Of course it would be fair and "Christian" to respect her decision as the boys' mother rather than to rain ridicule on her (are there any real Christians out there?).

Some folks have run off the rails over this issue, going so far as to accuse Juliette of everything from bigotry to brutality (or something like unto it). Isn't it time to give it a rest? Seriously?

Some people disagree in varying degrees, or simply have different preferences, and that's fine, but you're pulling out accusations that don't even exist! I just searched through this entire discussion and the only one using the word "bigotry" is you.

[Elizabeth]

I just deleted like 15 messages in this thread.... Be NICE people! You know who you are..... :-w

[wolfman]

OK lets change the subject try this one

“The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing. We have always counseled our members to be modest in their dress, maintaining such standards in connection therewith as would not be embarrassing to themselves and to their relatives, friends, and associates. We have advised our people that when going to the temple they should not wear slacks or miniskirts, or otherwise dress immodestly. We have not, however, felt it wise or necessary to give instructions on this subject relative to attendance at our Church meetings, although we do feel that on such occasions they should have in mind that they are in the house of the Lord and should conduct themselves accordingly.” (Priesthood Bulletin, June 1971.) That was 1971. Today the Church handbook mentions nothing about women wearing dress slacks to the temple only that they shouldn’t wear casual or sports attire. Quite frankly pant suits are much more modest than some of the dresses I see some people wearing these days! Sorry, garments hanging out of dresses is a pet peeve I have.

[marc]

Is it true that women's garments have been modified so that smaller blouses/skirts can be worn? I seem to recall this because some sisters would fold up or roll up garments to accommodate shorter/smaller clothes. But I could be mistaken or misinformed.

[wolfman]

The garment has been modified many times: http://www.scribd.com/doc/41977917/Hist ... he-Garment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On a side note relating to my previous post I find it funny that the brethren do not find it wise or nessasry to give counsel on certain subjects but many other Church members do

[wolfman]

OK lets change the subject try this one

“The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing. We have always counseled our members to be modest in their dress, maintaining such standards in connection therewith as would not be embarrassing to themselves and to their relatives, friends, and associates. We have advised our people that when going to the temple they should not wear slacks or miniskirts, or otherwise dress immodestly. We have not, however, felt it wise or necessary to give instructions on this subject relative to attendance at our Church meetings, although we do feel that on such occasions they should have in mind that they are in the house of the Lord and should conduct themselves accordingly.” (Priesthood Bulletin, June 1971.) That was 1971. Today the Church handbook mentions nothing about women wearing dress slacks to the temple only that they shouldn’t wear casual or sports attire. Quite frankly pant suits are much more modest than some of the dresses I see some people wearing these days! Sorry, garments hanging out of dresses is a pet peeve I have.

I would MUCH rather wear dress slacks than a dress....!!!! Maybe I'll do it.... :ymdevil:

Be prepared for some smirks and questions, my wife has done so numerous times esp during pregnancy when she couldn't cross her legs. Granted outside Utah it is much more appropriate.