Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Bob Loblaw
_Emeritus
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:26 am

Re: Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

Post by _Bob Loblaw »

Droopy wrote:Why do Jews wear a skullcap, Bob. Indeed, why does the Pope wear one?

Why do Buddhist monks shave their heads?


I understand they're symbolic. I just find the choice of symbol fascinating and the ferocity of devotion so many church members have to that symbolism.

The idea that white shirts and ties and short hair are from a bygone era is nothing short of silly. I think you need to get out and about a bit more. Where do you live, in a tent in People's Park?


More insults.

Then don't, but I've never been asked that by anyone - in 40 years.


Therefore I'm making it up.

snip insulting image


I was right. No point in attempting to talk to you. Go insult someone else and waste their time, not mine.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
_Droopy
_Emeritus
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 pm

Re: Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

Post by _Droopy »

I'm no leftist, but to me one of the distinguishing characteristics of fascism is the subordination of the individual to the group or institution.


True, this is one of its characteristics - and of socialism (Marxian and other schools) National Socialism, communism, Fabianism, and, in less intensified form, democratic socialism. Even the EU, in incipient form, contains this characteristic.

It is only to say, then, that fascism, as a sect or idiosyncratic manifestation of the Left, is simply displaying one of the characteristic traits of all authoritarian/totalitarian ideologies of the Left.

In that respect, fascism is indistinguishable from Stalinism and other forms of authoritarian government.


True.

Dress and grooming are used as symbols of belonging in fascism and Stalinism, etc., as membership in the institution becomes one's identity rather than one's individuality.


True.

Without meaning to offend I believe this is also what is going on in Mormonism.


Wrong.

Clearly the individual is subordinate to the institution,


Silly, to anyone who actually understands both the doctrine and culture of the Church. The most important thing in the gospel is the individual and the family. The Church exists at all only for one purpose: to exalt individuals and families. The institutional Church is utterly subordinate to this purpose. The standards of dress, modesty, grooming, as with chastity and the word of wisdom, and transmitted through the church to its members, who are completely free to accept or deny them at will.

At the same time, the Church is the authorized, divinely appointed vehicle through which these purposes are carried through and manifest to human beings on earth, but the institution exists only for the exaltation of the individual and the family, not for itself (as with most secular institutions). One is free to enter the church, and free to exit. The standards come from Jesus Christ, and if this is a problem, then there is a way to negotiate that problem. If one is not willing to undergo those disciplines, then one may choose to remain a critic and gadfly relative to those standards, and lose the blessings of obedience to them.

and one's value and identity come from membership and participation in the institution.


Utterly non-doctrinal and alien to LDS culture. One's value comes from being a literal son or daughter of our Father in Heaven. My identity is closely linked with my membership in the Church, but so what. The problem here, Bob, is that by your logic, virtually any sense of identity or personal subordination to something larger than oneself and one's own unique sense of self could be shoveled into the class "fascist." when its suits you.

The uniform is different but serves the same purpose.


It does nothing of the kind. No two purposes, indeed, could be farther apart.

Does this mean I believe Mormons are evil or want to persecute their enemies? No, of course not. But there is clearly a strong authoritarian streak in the church that has some obvious parallels to authoritarianism/fascism and I think that's what Kish was referring to.


And now you have lost whatever intellectual credibility you may have gained somewhere in this thread.

Ciao.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

Post by _Kishkumen »

Bob Loblaw wrote:But there is clearly a strong authoritarian streak in the church that has some obvious parallels to authoritarianism/fascism and I think that's what Kish was referring to.


I think so. I don't deny that there is a time and place for a certain level of conformity. I find it salutary to have deacons conform when they pass the sacrament, and I think the conformity of temple robes is altogether appropriate for the House of the Lord. But, when it comes to the point that full grown adults are being told that they need to wear a certain color shirt or shave their beards, that is going a little too far.

I guess my sensibilities on this issue mark me as a "Leftist" hippy in the eyes of our local right-wing bigot brigade.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

Post by _sock puppet »

Droopy wrote:
If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the emphasis on white shirts and ties and conservative dress and grooming standards is a reaction to the rebelliousness of the fifties and sixties, when having a beard or not wearing a tie were seen as deliberate acts of nonconformity.


You are correct. This is a part of the overall, underlying concept behind such things as they transpired in the last third of the 20th century.

It may have made sense back then but these days it seems a little dated and weird.


The revolutionary attitudes and style of the sixties is now the default position of the culture. Its simply been fully domesticated and absorbed into mainstream norms and mores. The grunge movement, which began in the 90s, is still with us, as are Hip Hop, "thug style", body piercing, tattooing, and other cultural Marxist/postmodern cultural forms that are very popular among substantial elements of the culture, increasing in popularity, and which are inconsistent with the gospel and what it is attempting to accomplish within the souls of those who accept it, and what it is trying to model to the deteriorating surrounding culture.

I can't tell you how many times non-members have told me that seeing missionaries on bikes with their white shirts and ties, helmets, and backpacks makes them think our church is a cult.


Yes, Bob, white shirts and ties remind people so much of the Manson Family.

Shall be move back toward reality now?

So much better that the Church encourage all males to dress in IBM corporate dress code. Heaven forbid they should express themselves individually. Elohim's head would explode--'does not compute'.
Post Reply