Ergo the White Shirt and Conformity

So only men need the gentle reminder of a white shirt? Count me as unconvinced Jeff.

So, conforming to the gentle reminder to wear a white shirt because you’re fashion deficient, because you need to be reminded of sacred rites in which you cannot participate unless you’re wearing white, because patriarchy does not stifle women who are not stifled by their own personal inclinations or because reluctant or unwilling servants need to express rebellion by doing something as offensive as wearing colored dress shirts is not evidence of conformity?

I think I missed something.

Convenient? The only white shirt that looks really good is a quality, 100% cotton one that has been sent out to a laundry to be pressed with lots of starch. How convenient is that? The convenient white shirt you see on most men at church is cheap poly blend wrinkle free that is thin, fuzzy and dingy from being washed too many times.

KLC,
Ease up, I’m not wearing the white shirt for your convenience, but mine!

@Jeff
I see nothing wrong with the idea of wearing a white shirt to church to symbolize important covenant making activities. I enjoy symbolism and appreciate the reminder. For me personally, it doesn’t bother me. I wear white shirts some weeks, and blue shirts some weeks. And some weeks I don’t even wear a tie ::gasp::.

However, I think we’re missing the mark here. I don’t think exmormons or anyone else would argue with the idea you’ve presented. Clearly it is, once again, the cultural tendency to elevate such practices to rule/commandment status that is so bothersome.

You’ve pointed out the problem so well here:

I saw how the colored shirt could also be seen as a subtle sign of rebellion. When a Deacon didn’t want to pass the sacrament on Sunday, he would usually do one of two things. Either arrive to the chapel late after the meeting started (whether his family was there or not), or wear a colored dress shirt. I have seen the other members of the Aaronic Priesthood pull this trick as well. Perhaps it was the only clean shirt he had? After a while, you see a pattern. I also see this was some older brethren as well who tend to be “reluctant servants….”

The white shirt has become a mechanism for reading and displaying one’s righteousness, or lack thereof.

In any case I’m cool with it.

I’m sorry, but a white shirt these days is seen as something worn by nerds and old people. You do not need to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament. Go to any single’s ward, most guys are wearing colored shirts.

I don’t know that I’d consider the white shirt tradition “oppressive,” so much as “obsessive,” i.e. obsessed with the appearance of righteousness. Of course, if the wearer’s character and conscience aren not pure, this tradition gives a whole new meaning to “whited sepulchres.”

jks — Speaking of Christ, I don’t think a person could read the Gospels in the New Testament and not come away with a clear appreciation that this white shirt nonsense is bullcrap.

Singleinthecity (11),
Actually, that’s not true. Hipsters wear short-sleeve white shirts with ties. Everybody in D.C. (especially politicians) wears a white shirt. And, though it’s not universally necessary, a whole lot of i-bankers and attorneys, at least in New York and Chicago, wear white shirts. (I can’t speak to other major cities–I’m assuming most Silicon Valley financial and legal professionals don’t, and I’ve never lived in Boston.) It’s not universal, of course, and most i-bankers and attorneys who wear white shirts are wearing shirts of far higher quality than most Mormons on Sunday. And I rarely wear white shirts (and only if they have French cuffs), but anybody who thinks that only Mormons wear white shirts hasn’t been in a real city–or watched C-Span–recently.

I remember attending an area priesthood meeting in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena around 1980, where President Kimball spoke. It was about half full, and it seemed like everyone was wearing white shirts and ties (it was nearly 100 degrees- very few suit jackets). It looked awesome, and I remember (at age 18) feeling like I was part of some important gathering, almost like an army, but an army for good. There must have been 50,000 priesthood holders there. Wearing a white shirt can mean a lot of things to the person wearing it, and to others. I really like wearing a white shirt to church, wearing my “Sunday best.” It helps set the day apart. It feels special to me. I don’t care what other people choose to wear, but I feel entitled to my feelings about what I wear. I like seeing my four boys all dressed up in their white shirts and ties. It has nothing (in my mind) to do with patriarchy or judging other people. I hope people don’t judge us for our choice to wear white shirts on Sunday.

Our Seattle ward does not observe the no white shirt, no pass Sacrament rule. My convert husband who was a member for a year before he succumbed to even buying a white shirt (let alone wearing it every Sunday) frequently passes the Sacrament. The guy that usually blesses always wears a taupe/light tan colored shirt every week.

But, I definitely appreciate the perspective of the OP, since I used a similar point when explaining the white shirt tradition in the church.

“my Dad uses a one-piece jump suit”

Maybe for the really lazy men with no inclination to fashion, a one-piece jump suit could be designed for the Sunday block. The upper half white, the lower half black or brown, with a stretch belt sewn in, with latching buckle. Since the tie is ‘necessary’, it could be sewn to one side of the collar and secured with a spot of velcro after the one-piece is zipped up.

“Maybe for the really lazy men with no inclination to fashion, a one-piece jump suit could be designed for the Sunday block”

I thought most guys sleep in their Sunday clothes so they don’t have to rush to get ready in the morning…… At least sometimes it looks that way.

Umm, how come nobody is addressing the fact that wearing white is not absolutely necessary for baptism? You see it in church magazines from time to time, pictures of people in remote and impoverished areas being baptized in whatever clothes they own. The missionaries are always wearing whites, but then white pants and ties were on their packing list, I am sure, and not borrowed from the Stake Center the way we westernized folks can do. And who among us (who has served a mission, at least) has not watched an investigator emerging from the waters of baptism with their black underwear showing clearly through their wet whites? It doesn’t make them any less clean (although it may make all of us a little more emabarassed).

Jeff, when you shave (and stay that way for a year), I’ll go back to wearing white shirts.

#24:
What seems lost in the conversation is this, “he said this while speaking of the Aaronic Priesthood administration of the Sacrament”

I said I like the symbolism, that’s it.

Jeff, your rationale raises a “chicken or the egg” question. Do you truly believe that LDS leaders decided one day that every LDS male should wear a white shirt to church meetings because it would symbolize their baptismal and temple covenants? I honestly find this entirely unlikely. I think, rather, that many LDS leaders of a certain generation matured within a corporate/business culture where white shirts were expected/required, and thus came to habitually associate a white shirt and tie with “respectable” grooming. Believing it was wise to create a respectable image for their church, they successfully imposed this grooming onto LDS culture by their example and teaching. Then, as subsequent generations began to reject reliance on mere “tradition, certain LDS leaders chose to justify the practice by re-framing it as a symbolic representation.

Sadly, I don’t believe any of the LDS leaders who came up with that tradition intended it to become a semi-independent barometer for judging the righteousness, loyalty, or obedience of LDS men. That particular distortion could only have evolved from the sort of (secretly insecure) self-righteous men who leap at trivial observances to prove their “spiritual superiority” over others.

I wear colored shirts to church occasionally, and agree with #28 that this is nothing more than cultural conditioning-. That said, if white shirts suddenly became mandatory, I’d wear them without hesitation. Adam learned that knowing the “why” behind the command isn’t usually known and isn’t necessary for obedience.

It’s such a small gesture, considering the saints that were asked to settle the “Big Muddy,” or even donate to budget, building fund, temples and others in addition to tithes and fast offerings. Those that would leave the Church over shirt colors and earrings are straining at gnats.

But Nick (31), is there any reason why symbolism can’t be grafted on after the fact? The fact that Christians have taken the egg, originally a non-Christian symbol of spring and rebirth (at least according to Wikipedia) and changed the symbolism to represent the rebirth of Christ doesn’t, in my opinion, diminish the impact or value of the grafted-on symbolism.

Moreover, I think your Man in the Gray Flannel Suit explanation of the prominence of white shirts probably isn’t an accurate description; it looks like these questions of the mandatory nature of white shirts predates the post-WWII professionalization of a lot of America.

That said, I’m not a big fan of the white-shirt-as-symbol theory, mostly because I don’t buy it as a good symbol. But the fact that it may have been introduced as a symbol after the fact wouldn’t, IMHO, cut against its symbolic nature if I thought its nature were symbolic.

@34 I’m just saying it would not be a great sacrifice, for me, to switch to a monochromatic wardrobe.

For being a world-wide church, doesn’t the whole starched white collared shirt thing seem a bit ethnocentric? Yes, in Western culture, a starched white church is about as formal as you can get, but there are so many different cultures with different ways of dressing. I just get annoyed when culture is treated like doctrine.

Nice post. Sometimes we overlook the connection between clothing and religion. But it’s there. When I see a man with “the collar” I immediately identify him with his faith, as I do when I see monks, whether Catholic, Buddhist, or other. I think white is a nice touch.

I think that the next thing the brethren should do is make sure all Aaronic Priesthood holders wear white briefs (or boxers) all the time and not colored ones. It is a more powerful analogy than a white shirt, and is the next logical step for separating the good from the bad based on clothing choice. If you ever wore non-white underwear, please think of why you didn’t find a better way to live. It could be added to the new DTG, or the parents could sign off on it separately.

I think, rather, that many LDS leaders of a certain generation matured within a corporate/business culture where white shirts were expected/required, and thus came to habitually associate a white shirt and tie with “respectable” grooming. — except, in that particular culture light blue shirts are treated the same as white shirts. Something that executive fashion consultants have noted is that the LDS culture has a different metric than the business culture. Just FYI.

I just accepted that in the church there are assumptions made when men choose to wear clothes other than a white dress shirt. I have chosen to adapt rather than rebel against the culture. But I think both are acceptable choices. — yes, and it has to do with the witness we bear by our clothing.

there are so many different cultures with different ways of dressing though formal western business wear has spread all over. Though that doesn’t require white.

The advantage to white shirts, which I used to wear every day until I switched jobs, is that they are the easiest of the alternatives to wear, day in, day out.

Of course it is all cultural. The desire to wear the “preferred” color shirt is just as cultural as the request by GAs to wear a white shirt. Why is it that it seems important to fight against the church culture but not your own? I could not have said it better myself.

Personally, I like white shirts…

I had to think twice to decide if it would be appropriate to share the following comment, but I believe it will be all right. And, I hope it conveys the refreshing mixture to which I was treated, of humanity, dignity, decorum – and engaging humility . . .

A few years ago, I was invited to lunch by two gentlemen visiting my region from Salt Lake City. One was a friend whom I had not seen in years, and the other was a General Authority of the Church whom I had not met previously, but whose name most of us would recognize with appreciative respect. We were to meet at an unpretentious but very decent chain restaurant, on a Saturday.

I pondered just a bit about what to wear in order to bridge the likely gulf between how most people would be dressed there, and how my hosts would have to dress. I settled on a fitted, dark grey dress shirt with subtle pattern, but no tie; nice-casual slacks and a corduroy sport jacket.

Arriving before my hosts, I gazed around the restaurant and felt uncomfortably over-dressed. In a few moments, in walked my friend and the General Authority. They were in dark suits, white shirts and ties, and stood out like mis-matched brilliant dental crowns in a mouth of otherwise slightly yellowing teeth (keeping, here, with the restaurant analogy). Even from across the room, there could be no doubt that these were the folks I was supposed to meet.

As Elder _________ approached, I reached out my hand to introduce myself, but his question came first, through a self-amused smile that was at once apologetic but unashamed:

“Do we look like Mormons?”

“Personally, I like white shirts…” and I cannot lie…….

#44:
except, in that particular culture light blue shirts are treated the same as white shirts.

Steve, was that true in the 1940-50s, i.e. the time period when these men were most likely habituated to the white shirt?

Well, it appears that the official “powers that be” have definitely decided that there is, in fact, a uniform of the priesthood: All of the good priesthood-holding boys in the new Duty to God videos are wearing white shirts and ties, except when they’re shoveling rocks: http://www.lds.org/dutytogod/materials.html

Ah, and 55 comments later, you all missed it — You can’t be judgmental and self-righteous if someone wears colored shirts, because then the garment line isn’t visible.

Come on folks.

Many opinions on this, but the majority seem to support my way of thinking, which of course is the best and most correct way to view this.

I’ve not worn a white shirt to church in several years.
The top button is never buttoned.
The tie is always lose.

Reason? I like it that way. I don’t care for convention. I get compliments from my daughters. I get compliments from my wife. I’m rebellious. I’m also a conformist (I wore a tie, didn’t I)

I’m glad that most of the replies here prove that I’m right. I’ve always kinda known it, but the fact that I’m a non-white-shirt wearer proves it.
Thank you all!

So Jeff, I have a request. Can your next post be titled “Ergo the Beard and Conformity”?

how about all white suits with white shirt and white tie, those were big in the 70′s

Re: #58

“But if shirt color just isn’t that big of a deal, then why not wear a white one?”

Well, I don’t like wearing white. I don’t look good in white, as it does not work well with my complexion. I have a number of really nice colored shirts with interesting patterns on them that look good on me. Some purple, some gold, some red. I like the way I look in them.

So, I guess I would say that the shirt color is a big deal. I want to like the way I look and I don’t think I am out of line for wanting that.

Oh, and I count my beard and no-tie policy as part and parcel of that argument.

66- Only if one wears them to demonstrate his own righteousness. If, instead, one wears them out of respect and reverence, and in an attitude of service when participating in priesthood ordinances, then no.

Some observations from Hugh Nibley:

“The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.”

Defenders will say that the apostles who urge white shirt wearing do not intend what Nibley criticizes (e.g. it’s only a “gentle reminder”). That’s fine. But at the local level where such “proposals” are enforced, and as has already been pointed out, regardless of apostolic intent the white shirt becomes a way to judge who is and isn’t righteous and obedient. And that moves us all in the direction of ruling by appearances. Hmmm.

Is this really a big deal?

“And yet many of them persist is taking the sacrament with their left hands. It is sad to see rebellion in children so young.”

You’re kidding, right?

“Just don’t make it into a pseudo-doctrine”

I think that is the point. It is not a doctrine and the only ones who seem to be trying to make it so are the ones who have been complaining the loudest about the wearing of a particular colored shirt. It was suggested that it might have significance to some (and I said to me) as a “gentle reminder” and the critics took off from there. But that not even I wear a white shirt every week.

The right handed sacrament thing was an attempt at ridicule and the no beard thing only keeps you off a mission, out of BYU and unable to work in the Temple.

“I realize that some members think that every tradition, practice or superstition held in the church today has some basis in its doctrine, but they do no harm unless they decide to preach that.”

Jeff, if that were true in the case of white shirts we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If that were true I would have never responded. If that were true you wouldn’t have written what you originally posted. You talked about deacons rebelling by not wearing white shirts. If your ward didn’t preach only white shirts for deacons passing the sacrament how could they rebel in the first place? You quoted an apostle relating white shirts to baptism and temple ordinances, how is that not creating a basis in doctrine?

The only reason I speak up about this topic is because it has already become something that many many wards and leaders in the church ARE preaching about. Wards say that no one can administer the sacrament without a white shirt. I have read of instances where leaders in the church are calling a white shirt the uniform of the priesthood, how is that not preaching?

On balance, I see Mormon culture as being a solid enough protection from a disintegrating world that I’m reluctant to see much problem with its rules, whether significant or trivial. Paul warned against excessive ritual observances, but frankly, I don’t see too many harmful effects resulting from people blithely accepting rules about the number of earrings, shirt color, facial hair, etc. If the choice is between too few rules and too many petty ones, too few rules makes a much bigger mess of your life.

There are two cases where I see Trivial Rules (“TR,” for lack of better shorthand) as being destructive: First, there’s the case where they may come to be seen as insurance against damnation. In some cases, people may — because of their proud adherence to the trivial rules — be blinded to their failures with respect to the weightier matters of the law, straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Like all insurance, spiritual insurance may create the risk of moral hazard: Because people see themselves as being “covered” by virtue of their good Mormonism, they may take greater spiritual risks in more universal matters. It happens, but probably not as much as people who don’t like the TRs in the first place would think.

The other problem with TRs is that they focus our attention on the authority of the rulemakers: If we are being judged by the degree to which we obey commandments, which otherwise don’t seem to make much sense, because they come from people who are supposed to have divine authority to issue commands in the name of the Lord, then that makes critical the question of whether those men actually have such authority. In some cases, Mormons obtain burning testimonies in the affirmative. In other cases, it doesn’t work out that way, and crises of faith result, some of which result not only in people leaving the Church, but — because Mormonism tends to incline people to think in all-or-nothing terms — has the effect of tearing down people’s faith altogether.

Whether the marginal utility of a one-earring rule or other TRs outweighs the marginal cost of the occasional case of destroyed faith, is up for debate.

“I think the problem is when we decide that a certain fashion statement is more important than following Christ.”

It’s interesting how I agree with that statement 100% and reach an entirely opposite conclusion from yours.

Truth is…I wish it were true,(the “Church”) I’d go naked to church if the prophet said to. White shirt?? Big deal. But it’s not true. No worries!

My fundamental problem with the “white shirt”: At the end of the day, our goal on earth is to touch the divine. This is true of any religion – LDS, Catholic, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. My goal in my life is to draw nearer to God, which can only be done on an individual basis.

While there have always been various “churches” on the earth to help facilitate individuals connecting with God, at the end of the day, they are just institutions. The LDS Church is an institution. It hasn’t always been on the earth in it’s current form despite our claims of a “restoration” (ie. with correlation committees, RS, Sunday School, etc.) To the extent it helps people get closer to God, it is extremely useful. Being born into the Church, it has helped form the way I approach God. I have learned many truths in the Church.

My problem with the whole “white shirt” issue is emblematic of a much larger problem. A great crust has grown around the core mission of the Church – that of approaching the divine. Small personal opinions about things that have nothing to do with this mission get elevated to de facto doctrinal status. They then unfortunately become a touchstone for someone’s relationship with God. If someone doesn’t follow these peripheral things, the unwritten assumption is that they are in “apostasy”.

Examples: While Christ, JS and others drank wine, etc., one leader decides around the time of Prohibition that “not a drop” is ideal. This gets built upon to the point where today drinking the same glass of wine that JS drank is near to “apostasy”. Similar with the white shirt, earrings, tattoos, Coke, home teaching, etc. There are good intents behind all of these, but at the end of the day, they are artificial constructs that have been set up in the Church as proxies for someone’s relationship with God. They have nothing to do with someone’s relationship with God and are NOT eternal principles.

At the end of the day, and in my own opinion, this is what is holding back missionary work. People want to touch the divine. People love the message of eternal families and divine authority. People want to believe in God. To reach God following the LDS path, however, entails that they also buy off on all of these other silly artificialities that have absolutely nothing to do with God or eternal principles. And they have become a tremendous detriment. I think that until we have leadership that is willing to jettison many of these peripheral things, that we are going to continue to stagnate in our growth.

The obvious answer is that these are all little things that people just need to “get over”. If they are such little things, then why do we make them into such big things? Or why don’t we get rid of them all together? Instead of talks about being accepting of all types of people, come as you are, etc., why doesn’t someone simply give a talk in General Conference with a blue shirt on?

#92

His and mine both.

#92 Jeff S

“…Or could it be that more and more members are just getting sucked up into the ways of the world. But, it makes one wonder if the reaction is so strong to these little, unimportant, but subtle things that can be useful to some, how about the really big things?…”

I don’t know that it is getting “sucked up into the ways of the world” per se. Whether we like it or not, the Church has to exist in society. The current members of the Church have to live in the world. We send missionaries out into the world to try to recruit more members. There are many non-doctrinal things that set Mormons apart from the “world”, officially and unofficially. Some of these are beneficial in both spheres – work ethic, families, dedication, etc. I think we should emphasize things in this category.

Some of these, however, can be seen as more of a hindrance, with the color of someone’s shirt being a simple example. Other non doctrinal practices that conflict with the world are things like the policy of allowing civil marriages followed by a sealing ceremony in countries outside the US, but banning that inside the US. There are 2 ways to approach these areas: 1) “stick to our guns” and say that anyone who disagrees with the written and unwritten practices are “sucked up into the ways of the world” or 2) accept that they aren’t really a fundamental part of the Church but just an “add-on” and change them.

In my opinion, we should change many of these things. Why should we have any potential stumbling blocks for members or investigators to prove a relatively meaningless point? In non-doctrinal areas, why not follow the accepted societal practices as they change and evolve over time? It’s not “giving in” to the world, it’s merely letting people be members of the society in which they live while also feeling like they are accepted members of the Church.

Dr. Pepper, yes it is interesting that we agree that it is just a shirt. Just now I have gotten around to analyzing my husband’s shirts and I don’t think he usually (ever?) wears a white one to church. He doesn’t pass the sacrament and I don’t think anyone talks about it. I don’t think he even thinks of it–he never mentions it to me. I would hope he thinks of it as “just a shirt” so if he had a particular calling and was asked to wear it he would. But I don’t know.
My son has a blue one. I intentionally bought him a non-white ones the past few years thinking that it would make the white one seem a little more exciting when he is told to wear it next year as a deacon as part of the “uniform.”
My two year old has a little suit pants & vest & white shirt. It is so cute. He has occasionally shown up with the vest & shorts instead (last clean item) or just a Tshirt and sweats. Last week my husband brought him to church without shoes which made the nursery walk to the field a little awkward when they brought him to me wondering what to do, but I managed to not get mad at my husband. It’s just shoes. No one is judging him for his shoes, but it would have been nice if he’d worn them.

*non-tolerant should be intolerant

Oops, meant @101, not 99. Apologies!

#83 ” don’t see too many harmful effects resulting from people blithely accepting rules about the number of earrings, shirt color, facial hair, etc”

Speaking as someone from a different culture and having lived in the US previously, I must say that we refer to this doctrine of suits and white shirts as ‘corporate america’….brigham youngs greatest fear was that the members of the church would accept the words of the leaders of the church without gaining a testimony of these things for themselves. The church in the US has incorporated aspects of it’s culture just as the church in scotland has incorporated aspects of it’s own culture…I can see how the church in ancient times apostazised due to the diversity created by these cultural differences…experiencing the church in these two and other cultures just highlights this to me more. I wonder how many time the leaders of the church are expressing their own opinions based upon there own up bringing rather than the actual churches stanse.