===

Perhaps an historical correlation — not to circumcision per se — but to the issue of holiness standards vs. foundational spiritual and moral/ethical gospel teachings might be illustrated thus:

If one were to see the LDS church make a comfortable allowance to not only allow, but recognize and VALUE the mystical import of Maori facial tattoos to those who have them, and would culturally want them. Or to say to converts who had a practice of drinking green tea, coffee or having a glass of wine with a meal before being baptised that continuing such afterward is okay, since there really is no negative effect of consuming any of these in moderation. But then the church, in the same vein, would simultaneously emphasize the importance of the Mormon Corridor dress and dietary standards for traditional, culturally reared Mormons likewise as important. What you would see is some Mormons thinking this was unfair, or, at worse immoral, and offensive to God. But this is precisely where we find the early church. On one hand, Paul, it appears, would encourage such new LDS converts given such leniency of holiness standards to not willfully flaunt it in front of the traditionalists. Similarly, he would encourage the validity for the traditionalists to maintain their standards, to refrain from tattoos, or to maintain their stigma with coffee, etc., — if anything to give them a cultural identity, which ultimately shows an individual willingness to conform with the faith of the community (even if they aren’t necessary to the Gospel per se).

Indeed, you find the LDS church beginning to enter this phase of its evolution. As data shows that many of the WoW health prohibitions, for example, are “merely” holiness standards, you see the church not emphasizing that the blessings of WoW obedience are as a result of causally-linked commandment:health benefits, but more the necessity for obedience to a standard, and that God recognizes and rewards _the obedience_. Now some would say this is authoritarian, or cult-like behavior, and I only partially agree IF the globalizing church rigidly fights conformity with this evolutionary reality for too long. So far, they gradually are “mainstreaming” — letting natural cultural holiness standards evolve as the foundational ethical, spiritual and moral essentials continue to become more clear. As said before I think the distinctiveness of Mormon Corridor “holiness standards” is more indicative of the immaturity (young history) of the faith, and especially, when it was a young faith, its need to create distinct social/community identities apart from the mainstream. This “odd” distinctiveness worked especially well for nineteenth century millenialist Mormons, but in the modern age “mainstreaming” will continue to exert its influence, and slackening of holiness performances will result.

What we don’t see clearly in scripture is the “missing link” persons who transcended changing holiness paradigms as gospel essentials were embraced by new peoples, times and cultures (particularly the modern age) and old cultural norms sloughed off. We definitely get a strong clue in Jesus and Paul, but when it comes to modern Mormonism it requires delicacy to draw conclusions. If a given LDS man is, for example, to change from a norm prescribing white shirts and proscribing facial hair and an earring, Paul, it would seem, would generally favor that man should conform with his community. Nevertheless, at some point, as enough men say “this standard is a holiness standard that doesn’t resonate with me” you will likely see a paradigm shift. (But of course you won’t see the dress standard change if such a standard does remain an exportable standard that resonates with future Mormon communities.) Once that shift happens you get the benefit of hindsight to see it really “merely” was a cultural holiness standard, and not a gospel essential.

Remember the “abomination” ascribed to Levitical holiness standard violations would largely be a penalty to those **who wished to remain, be accepted, and grow within their community of faith**. They were not of a weight as a penalty of sins against moral and ethical standards. Just as Jesus, upon John’s death set up shop preaching in the Zabulon wilderness away from his “hometown” the Hellenizing Nazareth and Galilee, so does it take gentle Mormon “revolutionaries / missing links” who don’t need their traditional faith community, per se, for genuine spiritual growth with God, but aren’t doing so just to be spiteful and rebellious. Again, a delicate lesson to put into practice, to be sure, without causing the offenses of which Paul would condemn. And certainly without causing the freethinking anarchist spirit at which Mormon hierarchy bristles.

Polygamy might be a better correlary to circumcision – a religious practice that was critical to the covenant nature of the religion itself but that died symbolically as outside and inside forces necessitated new revelation. Baptism replaced circumcision as the outward manifestation of the covenant, just as temple attendance in general (even as an individual) has replaced polygamy as the outward manifestation of our current covenant. I am amazed more members don’t use circumcision as a counter-exapmle whenever others claim polygamy simply couldn’t have been abandoned and the Church still be guided by God – both fundamentalists and those outside the Church. All arguments to that effect also would indict the cessation of circumcision as the covenant symbol and the replacement of it by baptism, since it is CLEAR scripturally that circumcision was taught as an everlasting symbol for God’s chosen people.

Last night I began to re-read Miller’s “Hidden Gospel of Matthew.” He compellingly addresses this very subject within a New Testament setting. But he’s also a scriptural Transformationalist (which I am not strictly one) so he considers it important to focus of scriptural teachings that transcend time, that self-evidently “export” to new cultures, times and places. He clearly delineates between issues — in this case Levitical Jewish holiness/purity practices and those teachings/commands which are seen as moral or ethical in nature. He makes a compelling argument that it is only religious moral and ethical standards that can be exported; holiness/purity practices are a living, if transitional, identifier with one’s orthopraxy within a community.

He notes how violation of purity practices was considered an “abomination” (hatred), which, while a strong word, is not the same as a damnable sin. But such purity violations were still serious, especially since they reflected not only on the individual, but the person’s family, as well as the holiness of the whole of the faith community. Now, like non-historical scriptural midrash, it would be tempting to discard holiness standards since they are not the foundational, “exportable” Gospel. But one can’t just discard such out of hand if the New Testament is considered a teacher, and “authority” in the matter. Here we find Paul is much more liberalizing of holiness standards (Jewish dietary standards, pagan meat altar sacrifice consumption, circumcision, etc.) for _Gentile_ Christian faith communities, but still practices some himself, as well as upholding them for Jewish Christians. Furthermore, even among the Gentiles he upholds some Levitical holiness standards (anti-sodomy) and adds his own. Nevertheless, you also see the Gospel of Matthew, written ~six decades later, and while anti-post-temple Pharisaical in tone, still upholds some Jewish holiness standards that Gentile converts did not practice mainly since the Matthew community was predominantly Jewish converts. In sum, the Matthew Gospel appeals to holiness standards as important even if not the “major” issues.

Applying this observation to modern Mormonism, is it easy to see, IMO, that The White Shirt is merely a cultural holiness standard, not Gospel essential. Yet, on the other hand, you have a holiness standard, like the WoW, which is culturally enforced as if it were a moral and ethical issue (you can’t get in the temple if a violator of a certain ilk), but certainly not strictly enforced (meat overconsumption anyone?) nor, in the end, will violation get you disfellowshipped or excommunicated (per Handbook). Furthermore, Mormon Corridor holiness standards, such as The Shirt, and The Earrings are exported around the world, as if such were more than “just” a holiness standard. Therefore, do these standards apply only so much as one wishes to advance within the church hierarchy, but not if one doesn’t wish such advancement, or isn’t culturally, strictly, a Utah Mormon? Do they only apply so long as the Mormon community is a small, protected and distinct population, as Christian Gentiles once were? (However if this were the case Utah Corridor-area Mormonism should be the most liberalized, but we see this is not so.) Does the religion just need to mature, like modern-day Christianity, until at some point there will be both stricter traditionalist-based wards and other moderate convert “Gentile” wards — and a practicing Mormon would be free to seek out the one to his liking? It is hard to know because the Church has, and continues, to exercise a lot of authoritarian and American corporation-like holiness standards, and clearly does not delineate them “merely” as such. Furthermore it affirms the abandonment of local cultural expressions such as tattoos, more casual attire, facial hair, hairstyle length, or body piercings.

I favor, despite any import Mormons give to such holiness standards, that such are more a reflection of the immaturity (not meant pejoratively) of the faith; given time, the relaxation of such standards, or delineation of them to some localized areas more than others, is bound to occur. And when that happens, as we are seeing it happen already, the foundational “exportable” Mormon gospel will continue to be easier to discern. But like the New Testament Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, we may never find open tolerance of those who comfortably live and exercise their faith within a community of more liberalized holiness standards. Could “the White Shirt” be the early Christian circumcision issue of modern Mormonism?

You mean you have to tuck your left hand behind your back when you pass the sacrament? I actually pass the sacrament with my left hand. Maybe that’s why they don’t ask me to pass any longer.

Unwritten Order sound so authoritative. I am coining a new term this day . . . and it will be called . . . “Virtual Commandments”.

Virtual Commandments: Commandments that virtually change from Stake to Stake.

Jamie Trwth

I have always thought it a bit of a double standard that a culture of white shirts and ties are pushed for the young men where the young women are free to wear such comfortable things as t-shirts and flip flops. But I will continue to keep this observation to myself after airing it just this once.

My general rule of thumb: If a practice has no other motivation other than conformity – no spiritual benefit or symbolic significance – it nearly always, if not always, is culture and not doctrinal. If it really is vital for our salvation, it will be recorded. “Unwritten Order” means multiplicity of interpretation – just like the game where you go around the circle and what is said at the beginning is completely different by the time it gets all the way around that circle. It is ain’t written, it ain’t real and shouldn’t be enforced, imho.

I have yet to own a suit since my mission (24 years ago). I do own 2 sport coats and a couple of white shirts. I figure I run through a white shirt when the others are dirty. Including Sunday.

In the church, we tend to get hung up on the funniest things. There is about to be a Priest/Laurel Regional Prom in SW Washington State. This should be a VERY big deal. However, to hear the leaders talk about it, and to observe the web site, you would get the feeling that what they are doing is having a modest dress event, and happening to have some music on at the same time. I think you could come to the thing smelling of booze, dirty, im-moral, but as long as the ladies dress meets standards, all is well… Geesh. the things we worry about.

GGT

Imo, there are cultural aspects to many of our “rules”, but there are few cultural aspects to most (if not all) core commandments and principles. The principles are used within cultures to create the specific “rules” that buffer the commandments – simply because our “natural (wo)man” can’t help it. We just have to complicate simple things. At the most fundamental and personal level, I don’t care one whit for “rules” – as long as I am applying the principles and obeying the commandments. However, whenever certain “rules” are seen as necessary within a given culture, I adhere to those rules – as long as they are not destructive in nature.

White shirts in church is a good example. I will wear pretty much any color shirt in church, when I attend as a regular member. When I attend in my official calling, I wear a white shirt, suit and tie – since I have been asked personally to do so as a part of our leadership culture. When I attend Stake Council meetings of various kinds, I often wear my work clothes (polo and slacks), since it is not a “public meeting”, sometimes I go there straight from work and my direct Priesthood leader has not told me not to do so. I wish I lived in a culture where there was no need for “rules”, but I understand their necessity. I just bristle sometimes when I think they are imposed as if they actually are commandments.

jks – “We should examine exactly why we don’t want to “conform.” We should think about why we don’t want to be “judged” on our appearance yet we insist on expressing ourselves via our appearance. We can’t have it both ways.” I agree with your sentiment, but I would add that we should also examine why we try to enforce conformity, and why we think it’s okay to judge someone based on what they wear or whether or not they choose to conform. Pride (in the Pres. Benson pride talk sense) is the sin here, and all are prone to it; it just manifests differently.

Apparently, there might be a policy against creating new “gospel traditions.”

I can see where a family moves to a new ward that doesn’t have the “all deacons must dress alike” rule, and the poor deacon who moved now considers his new ward to be apostate because they don’t follow the rule.

Kind of like the “you can’t get baptized until you give up colas” thing.

Twice I had a new-member confirmation disrupted in the middle of the ordinance by a priesthood holder (one time by a branch pres) who thought the ordinance was invalid because I didn’t use the phraes “we lay our hands upon your head.” According to the official priesthood manuals describing the confirmation ordinance, you physically do lay your hands upon the person’s head, but you don’t need to say that you do.

I think it’s okay to to discuss these things, but as I wrote to Jamie, it’s also important to get the official answers from your local official sources.

Does a man actually have to remove (and keep off) his earrings in order to be ordained an elder? Unless speficifics are given in the General Handbook of Instructions, I think that’s more or less up to the stake president, since he presides over the Melchizedek priesthood in his stake.

I know in one ward, the bishop required the aaronic priesthood to remove their earrings in order to bless the sacrament. One priest, right after be blessed the sacrament, and during the meeting, immediately went to the men’s rest-room and put his earrings back in, then re-entered the chapel to sit down with his family.

Yet in the same ward, a 40-something convert, with biker-style permanent earrings in his upper ear, blessed the sacrament. His couldn’t be removed without cutting them off and destroying the earring. So apparently, that was the bishop’s call.

We should think about why we don’t want to be “judged” on our appearance yet we insist on expressing ourselves via our appearance. We can’t have it both ways.

Your advancement to the Melchizedek priesthood comes under both the Bishop’s and the Stake President’s authority. So what is required versus suggested versus strongly recommended should come from them, not us.

Some of these issues are in the realm of “not required, but are suggested, so as not to trip up others.”

My son’s deacon’s quorum wants even more uniformity (the boys, not the leaders). They want the same haircuts, the same pants, to have all the boys wearing sport jackets. My son likes to buck the trend, so he is sometimes teased for being an outsider for only wearing white shirt with black pants (vs. the sport jacket with conservative haircut too). Like me, he complies with what’s been handed down from the pulpit (the one in SLC), but doesn’t go for all these extras.

I’m still working on the real commandments, thanks. Not looking for more yet.

I don’t think we do anybody any favors when we get preoccupied with shirt colors or hair cuts or earrings. This was driven home to me just last Saturday as I watched the priesthood session of conference at the local chapel. The room was filled with men who, almost uniformly, were white, were wearing white shirts and suits, were clean-shaven, and had conservative haircuts. The men we were watching on the screen fit the same description. However, there was one man sitting several rows in front of me who didn’t didn’t fit that mold. He was African-American, had cornrows, and was wearing a dark T-shirt and jeans. He looked as if he was very uncomfortable. About 20 minutes into the session, he got up and left.

I don’t know if he was a member or investigator. But in either case, walking into a room full of clean-shaven white men in white shirts and dark suits, and then watching a hierarchy of older clean-shaven white men in white shirts and dark suits address a conference center filled to the brim with clean-shaven white men in white shirts and dark suits must have been very imposing. If you deviated from that norm even modestly, how could you not feel uncomfortable?

I think it’s about time we stop trying to export Utah Mormon cultural norms, which are deeply embedded in upper-middle class white business culture, to the rest of the world. If the boys in Utah prefer to wear white shirts and and part their hair, then that’s fine, but I see no reason for expecting everyone else to follow suit.

On the white shirt issue (though it can certainly apply elsewhere), I wonder how many comply out of respect and obedience (to either a personal conviction, or a Priesthood authority (EQ Pres, etc…)) vs. those who do so to “fit in” and what difference does it make, other than the obvious blessings of obedience?