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.

I agree with your comments on the focus on substance vs attitude. It is not strictly black and white, but the LDS Church very much values external things: color of shirt, beard, number of earrings, minimum percentage paid in offerings, box checked for home teaching, not missing a single Sunday meeting, using the right hand for the sacrament, having the correct counselor sit on the correct side of the bishop, having the right instrument for music in meetings, etc.

One of the things that has very much attracted me to Buddhist principles is the focus on the inside – what you are and not necessarily what you do. You truly examine your thoughts and feelings and principles and refocus your mind around them. Actions then follow – but the essence is the attitude and who you really are at your core – not what you look like on the outside.

The way I see it, I don’t believe equality requires conformity. In fact, I would go so far as to say that regardless of how strictly one attempts to make people conform, those who think they “have” will find a way to lord it over those they think “have not”, making equality through conformity a losing prospect.

You do bring up a good point about the quality of clothing. It illustrates how, despite the suit/white shirt combo, people can and will differentiate themselves based on the quality of what they wear.

The inequality is based on attitude, not substance, as you said. The attitude is what needs to change, and we need to, as a group, start accepting each other, being honest with each other, and caring for each other without judgement.

I think that focusing on the substance (color, style, whatever) is easier than focusing on the attitude, but ultimately is ineffective at producing a real change among us. The more emphasis that is placed on the external, the more people will judge by the external.

The white shirt I see as keeping us all on the one level. However, in saying that, I do not see a plain coloured shirt as being distracting or proud. But wearing a $1000 suit that is obviously expensive and using that to show how rich one is, I have a problem with, because that does come down to pride. So to me it’s more in the attitude of what and how one wears their clothing not what colour it is.

In the end its all about being modest (in this case I mean appearance of, not sexuality of) in what we wear, not just at church but everywhere. Case in point – my uncle is a millionaire (but I get nothing of it). All through his life he wore a tank top and shorts and thongs (again flip-flops for you yanks) and drove a beat-up falcon. Only at home did he have expensive things like gold-plated taps, etc. That was his wife’s doing. No one would pick him for a millionaire because of the way he dressed and acted. He had the ‘bloke from down the road’ look and attitude. He also is not and never was a member, that’s just his way/choice of life.

BTW, for those who have problems with the prophet a few years ago giving guidelines on tattoos and ear-rings, etc see Isaiah 3:16-26.

“I was in California during the Prop8 business and after that wanted some way to differentiate myself so no one would mistake me for a conservative gay hating member.”

So, because someone wears a white shirt to church they are a conservative gay hating member. I’ll remember that next time I see someone wearing a colored shirt, it will help me differentiate between the tolerant and the non-tolerant. Thanks so much for pointing that out.

A few years ago we moved wards and I tried wearing a white shirt to see if I was treated differently. I was.

I was in California during the Prop8 business and after that wanted some way to differentiate myself so no one would mistake me for a conservative gay hating member. I went back to wearing coloured shirts for this purpose. It is very intimidating to be the only non white shirt in a stake p’hood meeting.

To me the white shirt represents both those who are ultra conservative, those who just haven’t thought about anything, just blindly obey, and I guess some who have thought and choose to conform. It requires a concious choice to wear a coloured shirt, in my area of the church.

“…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.

His and mine both.

“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.”

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 know your hot button is the WoW and you can’t seem to get over the what was then was then and what is now is now.

Nice guy.

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?

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

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.

Agreed, the “white shirt” is a minute thing, but it is extremely symbolic of the judgmental practices that have unofficially risen at the local levels of the Church.