After reading a post (and comments) over at Nine Moons, I was reminded with something more relevant in my life. I attend a weekly church meeting in which some present wear Sunday clothes and others present wear jeans and t-shirts.
Should weekday church meeting attendees dress as they would for Sunday church meetings, or should dress options be completely open ended?
Was this a meeting away from Sunday block that was actually held at the church or a meeting held away from the church but with church members?
At times I have my presidency meetings at the church other then at home but I have never asked the rest of the presidency to be in church dress. I am happy if they show up! I hold Scout meetings at church but am dressed in jeans and sweaters etc with the other leaders. If I am having a meeting with the Bp or Stake President for something during the week I am in Sunday dress. If my meeting is in the chapel for whatever reason, I am in church dress.
A meeting away from Sunday block that was actually held at the church.
If the meeting is with a Bishop, Stake President or other priesthood/auxiliary leader at the meetinghouse, I vote for Sunday dress. What ‘er thou art, dress well thy part!
Just wear your uniform and you will fit in. Don’t wear your uniform and your not righteous. ha. Been there done that.
George are you saying that those that are not in Sunday dress are not righteous?
No, he’s being sarcastic. He’s saying some members of the church think that way.
Believe that way. Chastise those who do not dress that way. Everyone must dress the same.
You’re right on George.
This church needs a collective slap upside the head.
Members get too focused on the outward apperance. It seems they have lost focus on ‘why’ things are done.
Again, to beat a dead horse, we no longer focus on principles. We focus on practices…
Hmmm… I seem to recall another ‘chosen people’ who acted the same way.
I wonder if we would kick Jesus out of sacrament meeting for not wearing a suit?
I’m sure Jesus would be able to stay in the meeting but he would not be allowed to bless the sacrament, much less pass it, give a prayer, heal anyone or even speak at the pulpit. His temple recommend would be revoked and any church callings he would be released from for not following the brethren my having long hair and wearing a robe instead of a suit, white shirt and tie. If he did not change his appearance, I expect they would even hold a church court to consider revoking his membership in his church if he refused to following their example instead of his example.
Comparing what Christ would or would not wear is irrelevant to the topic. What Christ wore during His life on earth was what ALL man wore at that time. If He came to earth to be born at this time of our lives I am almost positive he would not walk around barefoot or dressed in robes. He would wear what everyone else would be wearing.
Even in the times of Joseph Smith as poor as the members were, the Priesthood brethren were usually dressed in their best when going to the temple or to church. 3 piece suits and leather loafers were not the norm then and I can almost guarantee no one went to church court for not wearing such items to give someone a blessing. But the men did wear their best jackets and their cravats.
Sally,
Don’t we have scripture that describes exactly what he would / will wear when he comes again in this modern time?
In fact, in every recorded instance of modern revelation describing an apperance by the Savior, I believe he is described as being sans slippers.
The fact remains that by and large, the ‘true church’ is almost exclusively focused on practices and appearance rather than testimony and doctrine (which are awarded occasional lip service from time to time).
As evidence, I submit my quourm / ward / stake’s latest attempt to pump up the home teaching stats.
Our EQP pleaded with us to get above the 11% we are currently reporting. Our SP is recommending that the EQ Presidency step in and do the home teaching that isn’t getting ‘done’. There are talks of church discipline for bad ‘numbers’ being reported.
Do we ever talk about the doctrine of home teaching? Not since I’ve been here the last year and a half. Have I ever had a PPI? no. Am I ever asked how my HT families are doing? no. But they are all over the ‘numbers’. Anything to put down that check mark.
These foolish leaders are so busy cutting down trees that they don’t realize they are in the wrong forest. And when you try to tell them, they hide behind the false doctrine of ‘local leader infallibility’ and ignore you. After all, I’m only a quorum instructor, what could I possibly have to contribute other than my worker drone numbers?
I was thinking about the cult in California where they killed themselves so they could catch the passing spaceship. What I was thinking about is how they all dressed the same. Right down to the same brand of shoes.
White shirt, suit, no beard. Sorry wrong religion.
Sally – what is wrong with comparing things?. You know perfectly well that Jesus would not be allowed to speak at church if he did not wear the proper costume. What if Jesus had on a blue shirt or heaven forbid a moustache?
Jesus would certainly be allowed to speak, since this is His Church. No one could ever deny Him that right.
I imagine He’d have to show His temple recommend as proof though…
:) Well, maybe. But if the leaders are up to spiritual par, they would know who He is. At least they should, shouldn’t they? lol
I wonder who signs Jesus’s Temple Recommend?
I can see it now – Jesus is trying to enter the temple and the door man wants to see his temple recommend first.
Why is it the only people allowed to wear a white coat at the Temple is the 3 honchos in charge?
JM said: “I’m only a quorum instructor, what could I possibly have to contribute other than my worker drone numbers?”
Tithes and offerings.
You could give up being a “quorum instructor” and become a “Pew Sitter”. There are better perks being a Pew Sitter.
The members of our stake displayed Christmas creches from all over the world, some of which were in the back of the chapel.
Someone arranged to rebroadcast the First Presidency Christmas message Monday night. I took the kids but we didn’t dress up — in fact I was wearing jeans that day. My mother-in-law, visiting for the holidays, changed into Sunday clothes before we went to the meetinghouse.
I seem to have completely lost that thing where I feel I should wear a dress in the chapel.
I am surprised at the low level of discussion.
Ask yourself a question: “If I were about to meet the Lord, how would I want to look?” Further, “If someone were to regard you as their representative of the Lord, what would your dress say to them.”
I know that most of you would respond the way JM responded early on, but that statement doesn’t deserve an answer.
If his leaders are requiring the things that he says they are, however, then all he has to do is refer to Elder Ballards talk in the last General Conference and no more need be said.
Anonymous said: “If someone were to regard you as their representative of the Lord, what would your dress say to them.â€
I don’t think what I am wearing would matter because they must have just left the mental hospital.
Some people seem to think it is important for men to wear suits and women to wear dresses in the chapel. What in the Chapel makes this room more special than say the Bishops office or the even the Relief Society room?
Do you think Jesus cares if you wear a dress or shorts and flip flops?
>”I am surprised at the low level of discussion.”
I’m surprised you stooped to my level!
>”but that statement doesn’t deserve an answer.”
And yet, here you are answering…
>”then all he has to do is refer to Elder Ballards talk”
Now I need to start watching conference again…
Well, I just skimmed it. Great Talk. Almost like a nice short summary of counseling w/ councils.
This talk seems to be directed at leaders who have lost focus. Heaven knows we have too many of those.
What this talk does not adress is how we, the general membership of the church should react to unreasonable requests or leaders who are leading off in the wrong direction (maybe it did, but I missed it in my skimming)
My issue is sustaining misguided leadership. Local leaders that force me to choose between them and the Bretheren. Local leaders that force me to choose between them and the scriptures. How can I sustain my local leaders when in doing so, I would then be going against the counsel of Elder Ballard. By my sustaining my local leaders in their foolishness, am I giving them a false sense of security in their misguided efforts?
By following misguided leadership, I feel as though I betray my testimony. I go against everything I have learned.
I feel I couldn’t be wedged any tighter between the rock and the hard place.
And you think asking such a question brings the discussion to a higher level?
I agree. It was my favourite talk from conference. It really provided my presidency with validity for a lot of the things we’ve been doing. I listened to that talk at least a dozen times and we used it for training in our presidency meeting.
…you want to talk about being shallow?
He is ostensibly the SON OF GOD. He WILL NOT CARE how you’re dressed. Only some kind of egocentric, arrogant sycophant would think that appearance matters when facing a living god.
It sounds as if you are starting to believe your local leaders are not the righteous dictators they pretend to be.
There is really nothing you can do about it except to accept the reality of what it is. After all your eternal salvation is in their control: if you want to believe that kind of thing. Which is a very goofy ideal if you think about it.
How do you know JM’s local leaders pretend to be righteous dictators? After all, it’s a big leap from being misguided to being a dictator.
Kim Siever said: “How do you know JM’s local leaders pretend to be righteous dictators? After all, it’s a big leap from being misguided to being a dictator. ”
JM Said: “Local leaders that force me to choose between them and the Bretheren. Local leaders that force me to choose between them and the scriptures.”
Something about being forced to obey.
Well, based on my limited observation, misguided they can be. Dictators they are not.
These poor fellows are working ever so hard. Work, work, work. Chopping trees, clearing the forest with swift efficency. But they turn a deaf ear to anyone who walks up the mountain, looks around, and shouts “Wrong Forest!!!!”
The question is “why are you helping to clear the wrong forest?”
I have never indicated I’m helping clear the wrong forest. In fact, I’ve been up on that hill, screaming my lungs out.
A dictator is one who excercises absolute power. Not even the prophet does this.
Why are you on the wrong hill screaming to those who will not listen?
The Prophet has far less power over you than your local Bishop does.
At what point would you not do what your Bishop commanded (asked) you to do?
His power is absolute over you or you will not be saved in heaven.
Dictator is a good word for those who seek power and authority over others.
Hmmm, I have come late to this discussion but in case anyone is still reading it Let me say this: I was taught growing up that the reason we dress up to attend meetings in the chapel is out of respect for the Lord’s house. If we were to receive an invitation to say meet the queen in a state dinner we most certainly wouldn’t be in jeans. It is symbolic. The reason women are asked to wear dresses is the symbolism that we go to worship as sons and daughters of the Lord. Tradition, in our country is that men wear pants and women wear dresses. White shirts are symbolic to purity. Beards are representative of the world’s casual culture of indifference. The word reverence is a state of being that signifies the utmost respect and love for someone. We reverence the Lord when we attend his house appropriately.
I don’t think we should judge others though. Many people do not understand these principles and it is more important that they be in attendance. The Lord knows our hearts and the “cover of the book” is not always a good indicator of what is inside.
“Beards are representative of the world’s casual culture of indifference.”
huh?
“Beards are representative of the world’s casual culture of indifference. ”
I don’t agree with this either. There are many many who sport beards or other facial hair who are very professional and respectful. And reverent.
Please understand that I do not write to offend anyone. I am just writing a different perspective. I think it helps to see all sides of an issue.
And again, let me say that you can not jump to conclusions about some because of appearance. I am not saying that beards are not professional or disrespectful. What I am trying to say [as one who is old] that for those who grew up in a time where only those who had long hair or beards were representative of the drug and hippie culture. That culture was a culture of challenging authority; of indifference to many things. For those of us old people it is still the case.
I see many young men who are neatly dressed and who choose to wear some kind of facial hair. That is their choice and there is nothing wrong in that choice. We fought for our free agency before we got here and I do not intend to take that from anyone. I think our society may be changing in their perception of facial hair. However, for now, the standard for our missionaries and general authorities is to be clean shaven. It sets us apart from the rest of the world. It is a choice that is to be made individually and not to be judged but it should help us all to understand where the standard is coming from.
Elder Oaks once compared wearing a beard with possessing an empty liquor bottle. Nothing inherently wrong with either but both could be misunderstood and reduce a persons effectiveness. He goes onto say, “In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair is a mark of indifference toward the best in life.”
I think there may come a time when beards will be the norm for leaders again but until then…
Many rationalize that Jesus and the early prophets were bearded. To this line of thinking Harold B. Lee answered a woman’s letter this way:
Some may say well, that was 1973. That was 34 years ago. That is correct but the standard is still the same… at least for now.
In that spirit let me say that I do not understand the only one ear pierced hole per ear rule for women. I have a second hole in only one ear that I have had for 27 years,but, when the prophet asked for no more than one hole per ear out the second earring came. That second empty hole bears testimony that I believe in a living prophet and will follow his counsel and try to set an example for the youth. Maybe one day I will be able to use all of those odd, mismatched earrings by wearing them. Until then…
Interesting that President Lee did not mention the seven prophets before President McKay who did have beards. Interesting as well that you refer to growing up in an era where hippies were the only ones who had beards, yet many of the older generations in the Church today grew up in an era when the prophets have beards. It was only in 1951 that the president of the church stopped having a beard.
I don’t think it’s right to take a standard of clean-shavenness that was set in reaction to a temporary social trend and make it permanent. The association of facial hair with “hippies” is history. I don’t think there should be any more prohibition at BYU or anywhere else in the Church.
Having said that, I also support the leaders of the Church (and the Trustees of BYU) as seers. A seer is one who sees what I don’t. So I’m willing to subordinate my opinion to their guidance.
Huh. Are we rubbing off on you, ltbugaf?
I don’t understand why you would think so. In fact, I’m so puzzled I’m scratching the beard on my chin as I think about it.
You are too funny, ltbugaf; scratching the beard on your chin…
Well, if the last prophet with a beard was in 1951 then it was way before the hippie/drug culture of the 1970s so it must not have been based on a temporary, social trend. There must be some other reason. Hmmm…
I think President McKay just preferred the look for himself, though he did wear a moustache for much of his younger life. He served in the Quorum of the Twelve at a time when several of his fellow Apostles wore facial hair. I doubt that he disapproved of them.
I don’t know how much time passed between the time President McKay assumed the Presidency of the Church and the time when the Church began encouraging, and in some cases enforcing, a policy of no beards for men. I think the policy was, and still is, a reaction to a societal association of facial hair with certain counterculture trends.
Aren’t there bigger questions to worry about than person grooming? Especially for a prophet.
Mary
I wasn’t offended, and I appreciate all perspectives.
I also agree with ltbugaff’s point about permanent reactions to temporary social trends. I always thought those BYU folks were just hippie phobes with an outdated perception of social fashion statements. The problem is that a beard means different things to different generations. A 60 year old man who was part of the 60’s hippie culture will see a beard differently than folks in their thirties or twenties do. People just need to remember, what message does this convey NOW, not 40 years ago.
As for earring or Tattoos, at least this is a more updated and applicable concern. While I maintain that these things in no way affect my opinion of whether the person is a good or bad person, a bunch of crazy peircings and excessive tattoos DOES send a certain social statement in our society. However I admit I would rather have simple been advised to be moderate, rather than exactly how many earrings. We don’t get told exactly how many calories in red meat is acceptable after all. BUT as I’ve said before, people must note that the earring/tattoo thing is not actually a commandment.
Mary, I too, have an empty earring hole in my upper earlobe and I LOVED wearing earrings in it. After having babies it was one of the few edgy things I had left in my life. So I also mourn the loss of that fashion option. Sometimes I still sneak one in and actually go out in public that way (shhhhhh!).
And I like my husbands well trimmed beard and shaggy hair!
Seeming unimportant decisions.
The general consensus, when it comes to facial hair, always seems to be that this issue is mainly driven by the popular fashion of the day among conservative circles. If that is the case, then I must ask when did it become acceptable for the people of God to conform to the likes or dislikes of the world?
If the people of God truly are a peculiar people then why does it matter what popular culture and society at large thinks? Isn’t it actually God’s opinion that matters?
I have seen numerous people point to Leviticus 19:28 regarding tattoos
It seems, however, that everyone is ignoring the verse directly before it.
Either these are BOTH simply parts of the Law of Moses and fulfilled by Christ’s Atonement and so both are no longer in force meaning both that we are free to “mar the corners of [our] beard(s)” and to print marks upon ourselves or these are BOTH references to the body being the temple of God and still in full force to this very day.
Finally, the body is the temple of God. Why would the Grand Architect design a temple unto Himself whose outward parts would somehow defile the whole? IF our bodies are indeed temples of God and IF God Himself designed these sanctuaries of flesh and blood then isn’t a man who shaves his beard to appease the whims of society, even a conservative society, defiling that very temple which he should be cherishing? (Leviticus 21:1-8 regarding defiling oneself by shaving the head or beard) There may well be times when it is appropriate, even life saving, to shave as with working with automated machinery where a beard can be a death sentence or when the man simply can’t grow a beard even if he tried.
While we’re on the subject, I also find it very telling that the Lord expressed his views of long hair as well:
TROrmond, I don’t really think the Lord was expressing his views on long hair. I think Paul was expressing his views on long hair. I think that then, like now, Church leaders were concerned with the way Church members presented themselves to the world. When we avoid giving offense to those outside the Church, it becomes easier to share the Gospel with them. Paul’s views did matter then, just as President Hinckley’s counsel matters now. But neither President Hinckley’s standard on piercing and tatttoing, nor Paul’s standard on hair, is an eternal truth; they’re just adaptations to the conditions of the times, designed to help the Church progress in its mission.
ltbugaf, I’ll be sure to remember some scriptures are “just adaptations to the conditions of the times.”
How do we dare pick and choose which scriptures were “just adaptations to the conditions of the times” and which are applicable today? Or perhaps Paul’s writings just aren’t as good as the rest of the scriptures? Or perhaps instead of writing the word of God, Paul was merely writing an opinion column at the time? I’m fairly sure that Joseph left all of Paul’s writings in the JST and I’m fairly sure that no prophet since Joseph has declared the Bible as optional scripture. Ah, I know! Doc & Cov 1:38 had not yet been written and so does not apply to Paul!
What about the proven cardiovascular benefits of red wine (8 oz for men and 4 oz for women per day)? Surely that means we should be adapting Doc & Cov 89 to the conditions of the times? After all, the Word of Wisdom is “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints” but since I’m not among the weak then it must not apply to me. How foolish I would be if I actually believed that. Unfortunately, that very belief is so easy to find once we begin to pick and choose which scriptures are really scriptures and which are just the opinions of the prophets of the day.
There are more important issues to worry about than beards or hair length or even tattoos; after all none of those things will keep us out of heaven, right? That is highly dependent upon where the person in question is in their life.
“Live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God,” (Deut. 8: 3, Matt 4:4, Doc & Cov 84:43-45) even the “trivial” ones.
Why? D&C 89 says nothing about the benefits or detriments of any type of wine. I don’t see there’s anything to adapt.
TROrmond: I already said that Paul’s words were important. The saints of his time should have followed his counsel, and I hope they did. But I’m sure you can see the difference between an eternal principle and a principle that is temporary in its nature. Faith, charity, obedience: These are eternal principles. They don’t change. Dress standards, grooming advice, dietary commandments: These change from time to time, depending on the needs of God’s people. That’s the great thing about having a living Prophet—he can tell us what the Lord wants us to do now. No member of the Lord’s Church was violating a commandment by drinking wine in Paul’s time; today he would be violating a commandment. My guess is that the Lord gave us special instructions in our time because of certain conditions such as the dangers of drunken driving, etc. But I don’t know for certain what his reasons were. What I do know is that he tells us not to drink it now. His prophet also counsels us not to be tattooed now. And on the list goes. In Paul’s time, the Lord’s Apostle counseled the saints on how to wear their hair, how their meetings should be conducted, how to dress, and more. Great. The Lord, and his anointed servants, gave counsel that was timely.