Things Changed When Shirt Color Began to Matter

[_Bob Loblaw]

It's not just a requirement for passing the sacrament and you know it, Droopy.

All members of bishoprics and stake presidencies wouldn't even think of showing up for a meeting without wearing a white shirt and tie. They want all priesthood holders to always wear a white shirt and tie when performing any priesthood blessing or ordinance.

I even had a bishop in my area tell me that when he sees a man sitting in the audience wearing a striped or colored shirt, he assumes they are not worthy to bless the sacrament or perform or be asked to assist in a blessing, etc.

So don't pretend there's nothing to this.

What I think is more troubling than the requirement is the belief Droopy and others seem to have that merely questioning the rule is a sign of immaturity and is wrong in itself. Where does that attitude come from?

[_Droopy]

All members of bishoprics and stake presidencies wouldn't even think of showing up for a meeting without wearing a white shirt and tie.

Yes, I do know that. So?

They want all priesthood holders to always wear a white shirt and tie when performing any priesthood blessing or ordinance.

And?

I even had a bishop in my area tell me that when he sees a man sitting in the audience wearing a striped or colored shirt, he assumes they are not worthy to bless the sacrament or perform or be asked to assist in a blessing, etc.

So don't pretend there's nothing to this.

I don't accept anti-Mormon anecdotes about some Bishop's odd perspectives (or anything else) on this or that, but your are right about the other stuff, about which I have no problem as a faithful member of the Church, a Church I can disassociate myself from at any time I decide its principles are disagreeable.

[Guest]

It was no adolescent insult, but a well considered observation. That's what you folks around here just don't get.

Apparently what you consider a "well considered observation" is what everyone else sees for what it is: a childish insult of no substance.

Personal appearance, grooming, and the "personal culture" one carries with him or her - clothes, body adornment, make-up, etc. implies and indicates a great deal regarding self concept as well as one's values and view of oneself in relation to others and the surrounding social environment. The Church recognizes that and adapts those principles to gospel standards.

Do you know anywhere in the world where the white shirt and tie rule isn't the norm and expected? In my travels to different countries it's always the same.

The gospel and the purifying power and influence of the Holy Spirit are understood to polish and refine us as well as increase and expand our higher sensitivities, sensibilities, feelings, desires, and perceptions. It continues, in other words, to civilize us, but not just with respect to the higher things of this world, but with respect to an even higher Zion, or Celestial culture. That refining process involves interior spiritual change, but that change, if it is real, eventually manifests itself in outward appearance; in the "culture" one carries with oneself and expresses through, not only dress and appearance, but speech, attitude, mannerisms (and manners), body language, and general affect.

That's what I find so bizarre: you consider conservative American business dress to be a sign of civilization and spiritual enlightenment (Celestial culture). Where does this attitude come from?

[_Droopy]

What I think is more troubling than the requirement is the belief Droopy and others seem to have that merely questioning the rule is a sign of immaturity and is wrong in itself. Where does that attitude come from?

This thread isn't "questioning" the wearing of white shirts for such and such reasons as a matter of Church standards, but is, like most other stuff in the Terrrestrial Room here, an adolescent (a whining, complaining, why-do-I-have-to-get-a-haircut-mom type of I'm-18-and-I-can-do-what-want rant) anti-Mormon screed that exists for nothing other than its own sake (venting of spleen against those very standards).

[_Bob Loblaw]

This thread isn't "questioning" the wearing of white shirts for such and such reasons as a matter of Church standards, but is, like most other stuff in the Terrrestrial Room here, an adolescent (a whining, complaining, why-do-I-have-to-get-a-haircut-mom type of I'm-18-and-I-can-do-what-want rant) anti-Mormon screed that exists for nothing other than its own sake (venting of spleen against those very standards).

Don't be so melodramatic. The OP and most of the posts have been about the bizarre fixation of the LDS church on dress and grooming conformity. I look pretty much like an average Mormon--short hair, clean-shaven, conservative dress--but I don't associate those things with righteousness, nor do I question the righteousness of people who don't dress like me.

[Guest]

That's what I find so bizarre: you consider conservative American business dress to be a sign of civilization and spiritual enlightenment (Celestial culture). Where does this attitude come from?

See, you're not even capable of engaging in a logical, closely reasoned, point-counterpoint philosophical debate on the core principles and propositions I've adduced here.

I'll leave it to stronger stomachs to deal with you, Bob. I don't want this to get personal, but at this rate, if I keep going here, Its going to, so, per my present vow to avoid this when at all possible, I'll move on.

[_Bob Loblaw]

See, you're not even capable of engaging in a logical, methodical, point-counterpoint philosophical debate on the core principles and propositions I've fielded.

I haven't been attempting to debate. I'm asking you why you consider conservative dress to be a sign of enlightenment and civilization. I have no interest in debating you. I'm interested in your perspective as it's foreign to me. I'm trying to understand and you're just throwing insults about my intellect.

I'll leave it to stronger stomachs to deal with you, Bob. I don't want this to get personal, but at this rate, if I keep going here, Its going to, so, per my present vow to avoid this when at all possible, I'll move on.

What you're avoiding is answering my questions and I have no idea why.

[_Droopy]

What you're avoiding is answering my questions and I have no idea why.

Because you avoided the entire substance of the two explanatory paragraphs I posted above, and I have no idea why.

[_Droopy]

I haven't been attempting to debate.

Welcome to the Trailerpark.

I'm asking you why you consider conservative dress to be a sign of enlightenment and civilization.

Its one sign, yes. So is a beautiful, well pressed Kimono.

And?

[_SteelHead]

Outward looks and performances have little to do with personal worthiness. See whited sepulchres. The Mormon dress code has more to do with conformity and group identity. As an individualist and a non conformist.... I think it petty. See whited sepulchres.

Such a mode of dress: white shirt, tie, short hair, is no valid indicator of anything outside of conformity.