Wheat & Tares welcomes guest poster Bill Reel once more for a discussion about how cultural mores can become pseudo doctrines.
Mormon Discussion Podcast takes a close r look at the “The White Shirt Phenomena”. This is a great issue to use as a backdrop for our culture creating rules that do not really exist, believing they really are rules, and in the end there being no rule at all. This applies to dozens of private interpretations we make within our culture and how we impose those on others to create hard and fast rules where none have been given.
– What other rules are you aware of that seem to have no Doctrinal basis?
– How do you handle it when people confront you with pseudo doctrines?
– What is the best way to deal with such issues?
This episode is found HERE
Resources for this episode
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/this-do-in-remembrance-of-me?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1983/04/muddy-feet-and-white-shirts?lang=eng
http://emp.byui.edu/huffr/The%20Unwritten%20Order%20of%20Things%20–%20Boyd%20K.%20Packer.htm
Bill Reel is the host of Mormon Discussion Podcast. The podcast tries to deal with the tough issues forthrightly while “leading with faith”.
Wheat & Tares 
So many to chose from. White shirts, caffeine, rated R movies, the ever expanding list of corollaries to the law of chastity, the stale and repetitive format of sacrament meeting, silence following musical numbers, non-priesthood callings not being given to women, home teaching (at least its present form), seminary, no early dating, short hair and clean shaven…just off the top of my head.
I make it a personal point to avoid these whenever possible. The white shirts I find especially irksome, and I very rarely wear white shirts as a result, essentially only in the temple. If someone presses me on these issues I won’t back down, but that rarely happens. Living well outside of Utah also helps.
As the heavens opened to Moses his people craved a golden calf. The LDS church is hopelessly pharisaically mired in materialism and symbolism routinely mistaking the finger pointing at the moon for the moon. In spite of Joseph’s restoration and abundant spiritual doctrine it hasn’t progressed much beyond Moses and it has a long, long way to go to catch up with Christians who know and many who commune with the moon.
Bishops not calling Deacons to be home teachers is not doctrinal–though one (not me) could argue that they are too young to take it seriously enough. The rationale has always been reference to the “scripture” about Teachers’ job in the D&C–with no understanding that those Teachers were full-grown men.
I always took my sons with me home teaching as soon as they were ordained deacons and had the older of the two assigned to another adult. My push back to any bishop commenting was that he was my son, we needed the time together, and the D&C was misinterpreted in that regard. It always worked.
Cultural rules can be just as important as more clearly deliniated commandments. It all depends upon how they are understood by the practioners. For most LDS, a white shirt is a symbol of reverence and respect, and God honors their decision to wear a white shirt because it is for these reasons. It is also understood by some as a commandment. “To him whom it is a sin, it is a sin, to him whom it is not a sin, it is not a sin” as Paul said.
For others, a white shirt is indicative of mindless conformity, and they demonstrate their love for God and His church by celebrating their own individuality and their rightful place in the church as part of a diverse body of Christ. God also honors their view, inasmuch as it is an honest expression of their faith.
Nate,
I like your comment but the church is not a “live and let live” (liberal philosophy) kind of an organization so while there are the variety of views you clearly laid out there is also the self appointed white shirt police and the often peer supported white shirts are better bias that seek conformity by all.
Why is our legalistic religion so legalistic!
Because we’ve substituted inspiration for the power of revelation!
Howard, you are right. I left out a few types in my assesment regarding the legalistic element of the church Kullervo pointed out.
Those who see the church legalistically, who view white shirts as a commandment, are going to pronounce judgement and seek to marginalize the influence of those who don’t obey those commandments. Therefore, someone who retains a more liberal view must balance his desire for what he deems is a rightful freedom of expression, with the marginalization that will come from being surrounded by the police, as you say.
I knew a bishop in New York who recieved specific instructions from his Stake President that when a visiting General Authority came for a visit (not a stake conference), ALL his sacrament passers must be in white shirts. The bishop obeyed, and the sacrament was passed in white shirts. But he himself wore a colored shirt!
This could be interpreted as a sign of insolence by the Stake President, but perhaps the visiting General Authority, unaware of the war going on, may have admired the open-mindedness of a bishop who dressed a little differently, or not. It was also a Single Adult ward, so the audacity of a bishop to wear a colored shirt for a visiting general authority could help those singles in the ward, who already feel marginalized on a number of levels, feel like their own diversity is accepted by at least some in the leadership.
Clothing is a form of communication, a special language whose meaning is dictated by the surrounding culture. Many are unaware of the layers of meaning, and judge superficially, so you have to realize that you may be speaking one language to one person, and another language to another.
I used to wear colored shirts, but now I wear white shirts. For me it’s not a sign of reverence or respect. I wear white to conform, because I want to conform. I don’t want to be misunderstood or judged. And after I have conformed on superficial levels, I have more power and influence, a liberal wolf in conservative clothing.
My ideal would be to loose the business suit look, which I believe is antithetical to the spirit of the gospel, according to my broader reading of the language of clothing, more appropriate to a funeral, or a high powered business. More casual, protestant-wear, would be more appropriate to the spirit of Mormonism. But I also understand that is not how it is read by most Mormons.
When we were first married in 1970 our Stake President in London never wore white shirts, always stripes or dots. His wife wore skirts well above the knee. This was during the swinging years in London. He was a loved SP?
The things I would nominate as culture v Gospel;
Obedience is the first law of heaven as a culture, which includes,
unquestioning obedience to anything from SLC,
no differentiation between Declarations, Proclamations, conference talks,and other teachings of GAs,
belief that all Apostles have the same view on everything, that they are in total agreement,,
they are also infallible,
The need to sanitese history to maintain the mith of infallibility,
no difference between Gospel, Church, and conservative Utah culture,
the ever darkening world,
modesty as a Gospel principle
the Lord will not allow his church to be lead astray
never refuse a calling.
If you don’t believe all of the above you are spiritually inferior.
I have been informed that whenever Pres Lee visited Britain he would buy shirts in pastel colours from Marks & Spencer, which he very much liked.
Much of the problem with the church is that it has been captured and governed by conservatives. This isn’t something that can be defended by gospel principal or scripture and Jesus our examplar clearly was NOT conservative. It’s not so much about politics as it is about personality types. Concervatives aren’t inclusive, you must be like them to be accepted, you must conform or leave. So in truth the church in practice appeals only to conservative men and conservative women and mindless compliant followers, all others experience some degree of misalignment with this country club even as they feel very much aligned with God and the gospel.
In 1974 the Stake President visited the Branch I was raised in. The hair styles for young males was somewhat long – over the ears (covering the whole ear), over the collar or longer, some had hair almost to shoulders. An 18 year old was not allowed to pass the Sacrament because his hair was too long, even though he was in a suit and tie with white shirt. Another 18 year old, who everyone knew drank alcohol and chewed tobacco and had the outline of the snuff can in back pocket of his jeans and wearing a Western shirt with no tie, could pass Sacrament because he had short hair. The 18 year old with long hair quit the church and to this day hates the church and his father went inactive for many years. The clean cut tobacco chewing kid eventually left the church also.
In 2002 in the town I currently live my son had a male school friend whose parents did not have much. The parents were inactive but the male friend and his two sisters went to church every Sunday. The male friend had very short hair but had a small hair “tail” at back of his head (one male hair style at that time) They were in a different ward than us. One day the Bishop of this kids ward visits with the kids family. My sons friend was told by the Bishop the friend had to wear dress slacks and dress shoes or he could not pass the Sacrament. The friend wore a white dress shirt, tie, black jeans(wore those particular ones only to church to keep them nice) and black tennis shoes. His pants were not hanging halfway down his butt like some boys were wearing their pants, even in church. His hair was not dyed nor did he have a wierd haircut like aome boys in church had. The famy had their names removed from church records and joined the Baptist church.
Most Mormon members and especially leaders
focus on the letter of the law and not on the Spirit of the law. I ran into this same attitude on my mission constantly.
Howard, you would indeed be hard pressed to argue that Jesus was a conservative, although I also think you’d have a hard time arguing he was a progressive (at least in the way the term is used to describe more politically left-leaning individuals).
I personally view him as an anarchist, able to tolerate the entire spectrum of humanity, in a way that conservatism and progressivism fail to. His Church is also anarchic in that it is governed by the principles of the gospel, but beyond that has tremendous flexibility to accommodate a full range of cultural and social practices while still directing all who heed the gospel to Christ. Decentralization at its finest.
I would argue that even the division of LDS Church membership into worshipping units like Branches, Wards, Stakes, Areas, etc., is also a pseudo-doctrine. It is quite convenient for a church that is more a large corporate entity, but beyond that (how else would they keep meticulous track of all that tithing!?), it has little basis in the gospel. Bishops were initially more like welfare program overseers rather than rulers/leaders of congregations. And the Priesthood offices are fully capable of functioning autonomously. I suppose you could extend the argument to state that, with the exception of the sacramental ordinance itself, the remaining entirety of LDS worship services, including all ancillary organizations, are at their heart a useful pseudo-doctrine.
Politics is another cultural thing.
I was told by someone that there is no way I could be a member of good standing because I am a registered Independent and sometimes vote for *gasp* Democrats or other. There is a belief that ALL members have to be registeted Republicans. I truly believe some members think it is gospel that all members have to be Republican.
I was also told my Temple recommend should be taken away. No lie.
And to clarify, bodies like an Elders Quorum or Relief Society are just that: societies. They need not be bound by religious affiliation, geography, political borders, language, etc. Each is fully capable of functioning in an autonomous, self-directed way, fully outside the purview and oversight of the hierarchy they are currently subjected to. There is no need to be affiliated with a particular ward or stake as is the present custom.
What a great podcast. I really enjoyed it’s very reasoned, calm approach. Bravo, Bill. I also adopted Elder Holland’s approach to the Sacrament and for me, it seemed to make sense to wear a white shirt to church each Sunday since taking of the Sacrament is the main reason we are there. I have many other colored shirts that i can wear to other Church activities.
My own pet peeve has been the beard. I’ve written about it, commented about it, asked about it and no satisfactory answer has ever been given. I cannot see a doctrine or principle what even comes close to suggesting no beards. The irony that Heavenly Father and Jesus are portrayed as having a beard but yet not allowing good, faithful men to serve in the Temple with a beard is obvious.
And yet, I can’t help but think that most of these “rules” come about mostly well-intentioned, yet misguided. Like the Pharisees of old, these ”performances” are not put in place because we hate God, but because we love Him and want to please Him.
So, I try to see it more than way than the snarky comments on this post would suggest is the real reason.
PZ,
I don’t see Jesus as an anarchist, he brought radical change and in that way was progressive. The gospel he taught is the beatitudes something not yet realized that is more compatable with the concept of Zion than the bricks and mortar construction company known as the LDS church.
The conservatism of the LDS church is an example of “prophetic” bias causing mission creep. A string of very falliable but conservative general authorities are followed by the members as if almost everything they say is actually prophetic (it iusn’t) and voilà the gospel of Jesus Christ and “the only true church” becomes conservative and exclusive! Never mind that this pervision is totally unsubstantiated and incomparable with Jesus’ inclusive example! Then the obvious inconsistencies are backfilled by conservative church apologists and the propaganda transformation is complete. Never mind that it places the church in a state of aposticy.
Ervin Brokovich (at least as portrayed by Julia Roberts) said it best: “As long as I have one (arse) instead of two, I’ll wear what I like”.
Like Nate, I wear a white shirt because I want to conform. I find it goes a long way in soothing over concerns about my beard, long hair pulled back into a loose queue, half inch plugs in my ears, and tattoos. I also make it a habit of long sleeves at church, though I can't do anything about the bits that poke out on the wrists.
I won't budge about the tie or business suit. It isn't the language of clothing alone for me, what we wear can change our behaviors. If there is a culture of suits and ties for work, then wearing the same to church will place you more into a work mindset over a worship mindset. Farmers in dress suits on Sunday aren't in work clothes; lawyers, bankers, and salesmen are. For me, a nice vest and often a tied scarf with the white shirt, and I am pulling off what I was told is a dapper modern pioneer look (not my words), and I just thought I was being a goof-ball the first time. One sister thanked me a few (err,
excessivelymany) times for always honoring our pioneer heritage. She was sincere and so I can't even mark it up as crazy Idaho talk. (I even get a smile at the recommend desk. I think we talk about our rules a lot, but where the asphalt meets the boot we are closer to an ideal Christian response than many might like to think. I can say this despite never being asked to help pass the sacrament.)Well, I try to semi-conform, that is what mormons like.
Jeff Spector, thank you for the compliment. I must disagree though. I don’t see Elder Holland saying anywhere that all who partake of the sacrament should be in white, rather I see him only speaking to and trying to be sure that others also understand that he is only speaking to those who administer the sacrament…. NOT those who partake of it. he wants the priesthood officiating to be in white, for all others I see not suggestion and especially no Doctrine
Bill,
“I see him only speaking to and trying to be sure that others also understand that he is only speaking to those who administer the sacrament….”
No, I get it. I just made the personal choice for me. Just like one of the guys in the Ward decided to wear white shirts while his son was serving a mission. Just a personal choice. it is the making a personal choice or idea a requirement is where the problem starts.
#22 – you said it best…it was your PERSONAL choice. No one can argue with you proceeding IAW D&C 58:26, e.g., taking your own initiative as to manner of dress for attending Church.
It’s really not a matter of finances. A pair of dress shoes, polished to a high shine, pressed dark trousers, and a white shirt and tie can all be had fairly cheap at any Thrift store…like Deseret Industries. And if a brother is so destitute that he can’t swing even that, or get to the store, then by all means it’d be quite appropriate for the Bishop to use the fast offering funds to adequately clothe him (James 2:16). And certainly NOTHING prevents his better-off brethren from dipping into their own pockets and outfitting the man so he can literally “fit in”.
There’s a line between showing respect and expressing oneself. I’ll wear the white shirt if I expect to do anything in Church. If I pick another color (my fave is the blood red and black tie), then it’s a subtle message, “Leave me alone, I don’t want to do anything today”
We were in California visiting, during prop 8. I have not worn a white shirt to church since, because I don’t want to be mistaken for a conservative mormon.
What I still don’t understand is what makes a white shirt inherently more appropriate than a dress shirt of any other color, or a white dress shirt with blue pinstripes. Is it because white represents purity? (Just like the Nephites were ‘blessed’ with white skins and the Lamanites were ‘cursed’ with dark skins? Because ick.)
And why neck ties? How is it automatically more appropriate for a worthy man to perform the ordinances of the priesthood if he has a useless oblong of silk dangling from his neck? And it’s more appropriate for a woman to wear clothing whose fabric does not connect between her legs rather than clothing that does.
I mean, if you strip away all of the cultural expectations, it’s really hard to come up with justifications for any of the unofficial-but-still-sort-of-official dress codes of the Church.
And Jesus said unto them,”How is it ye come unto me clad not in white dress shirts? For behold, no man can enter the Kingdom of Heaven save he first be clad in a white shirt and adorned about the neck with a sensible tie.”
The great thing about white shirts they have only been really white for about 30 years. The first time I was in the temple I remember looking around and seeing all the old men and being shocked at all the different shades of white. My dads shirt was far more yellow than white and he was far from the darkest yellow in the room. Mine was more blue than the white we have today. Going to the clothing store gave a much wider array of white options than what you see today.
Clearly white shirt importance is overblown and I really wonder if those that see it as important really see the people in the shirt or just the shirt. I know in my stake the stake president has made it primarily the shirt that is important.