Ben Crowder

This won’t be a full response, but wow, I love it. I completely agree with Nibley here.

I miss Hugh.

I’m just curious as to where Jesus says that? What’s the reference? That’d be interesting to go look that up, I think.

Ben, this quote is just perfect timing for me. Maybe this is more of a worldwide problem than I realize, and maybe I’ve been lucky to have very good wards in the U.S., but this is exactly–exactly–what’s driving me crazy about the church in Thailand right now.

I don’t consider myself a dissident, but I’m praying for a regime change. I figure He’s the only one I can really petition, anyhow. I’m only slightly exaggerating when I say that I feel like I’m struggling against a brand of brainless zealotry, where the message being sent is, “If you can’t meet the standard 100%, don’t bother showing up.”

We don’t need yet another talk about punctuality and not buying lunch on Sunday. We need some reinvigoration based in scripture and revelation.

Okay, maybe I am a dissident. Sigh…

Katherine: :)

Connor: Me too. I never got to meet him, sadly.

Julie: Pretty much everything Jesus said to or about the Pharisees and Sadducees, actually. :)

Rikker: Agreed. If Jesus were there, he wouldn’t be sending people away (either overtly or subliminally). Yes, we need to strive towards perfection, but God already knows we’re not going to make it, and he’s taken that into account. He’s willing to work with us, wherever we are. Sure, we can’t rationalize our sins away, and Jesus isn’t going to do that either, but the Atonement’s there for a reason.

rikker…

the more a testimony of the Gospel grows the more obedient the holder will be to it. i think you’re frustration is rooted in those who are looking beyond the mark. it’s understandable.

good quote. i had seen it before, and i like it.

didn’t the Lord preface an entire sermon with :Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” ? wasn’t that matthew 23?

yeah… it was…

Sixline, I agree. And that’s what’s frustrating about living in a country with such a zygotal Church presence, and see this zealotry that very much focuses on rules and conformity over the actual message of the gospel. That’s why we need to convert people first, and they will be more obedient as they grow, like you say. As it stands, it’s more like “Here are 1000 things you have to do… have fun being a Mormon…”

It’s waaaay too much of a culture shock, and too much of it is imported pre-canned from the Rocky Mountains. I honestly don’t give a flying damn about white shirts and ties if people aren’t coming to church. There are a lot of factors, but there’s a very small group of longterm members who dictate what it means to be a Mormon in Thailand, and much of it is more extreme than my wards back home, and ultimately much less effective. Baptisms continue each year, and yet sacrament meeting attendance is going down each year. There’s a net loss of members greater than the number of baptisms!

Something is not right…

Agreed. Coming to church is more important than the clothes you wear when you come.

The debate over dress is a rather interesting one. I don’t know if the white shirt rule is codified in the priesthood handbooks, but it’s criticized by some for how broadly it’s applied. That is, some people disagree that members in Africa or Tonga or Japan should all dress like American businessmen, because they each have their own styles of native formal dress. I tend to agree with that assessment, and even for me as an American, I don’t think such a big deal should be made of wearing a white shirt specifically. And if women wore nice pantsuits to church, they’d look nicer (and more formal) than the casual skirts and shirts that many women wear. Yet that’s a big taboo, for no sensible reason.

I’ve heard people defend the white shirt and tie as our sacred vestments–Catholic priests have their robes, Mormons have white shirts and ties. And yet, I don’t know of any doctrine to support that idea. Then people tend to bring up the talk by Pres. Packer “The Unwritten Order of Things”, but I’m indifferent to many of the things he talks about in that talk, too. (Maybe it’s me, but I find myself utterly uninterested in issues like which side the counselors of the bishop sit on.)

I logically understand the ideals behind the white-shirt-and-tie standard, that it represents purity, that it’s meant to be non-distracting during the sacrament, etc. And those make sense, I guess. But when you compound that with–as I was taught when I was in YM–to “always come to church dressed so as to be ready to administer a priesthood ordinance,” and the (il)logical extension of that, “if the YM are asked to do it, might as well have the adults do it, too”, then all of a sudden it becomes a marker of perceived righteousness and obedience, and something members use to judge one another.

Another rant by Rikker…

Be careful of the rants, rikker. Those mild inconveniences and items of dispute can quickly become seeds of apostasy.

(Obviously I’m not impugning your standing between yourself and the Lord, just a friendly reminder. :) )

Maybe I need to choose my venues more carefully. That my discussion (the term ‘rant’ was meant tongue-in-cheek, and is misapplied if taken literally) of the underlying issues of Sunday dress merits a DANGER WILL ROBINSON! impending apostasy alert, as opposed to thoughtful responses, bewilders (and kind of frightens) me. Are we that afraid of actually having an intellectual understanding anything we do in the Church, let alone discussing the merits of things we do (that are clearly not basic doctrine)?

Personally, I think we should say “Sunday Best” and leave it at that, kind of like the gross/net income debate on tithing payment and the caffeine/green tea/too much meat debates on Word of Wisdom observance.

I guess *that* was a rant.

Perhaps it’s the same idea as in the temple, where everyone wears the same thing and so class and status differences are erased. Either way, I do think we ought to be able to have intellectual discussions about the Church without fear of apostasy alerts, and I also think it’s fairly easy to interpret said discussions as being on that slippery slope, because the core idea of our religion is that God reveals truth to us, and if we start doubting then where will we be? (Yes, yes, I know that culture does not equal doctrine. It’s just that our whole mode of thinking is focused on received revelation, and separating the actual God-given revelations from our man-made interpretations — not to mention deciding which interpretations are weighty enough for us to consider them close to doctrine — is hard.)

I think it’s a sort of inescapable paradox that what someone says in their official capacity (when moved by the spirit) is scripture, and that even people in their official capacity make incorrect and false statements (it stands to reason that they weren’t moved by the spirit in such a case).

There’s no institutional instruction about differentiating between the two, nor apparently any tolerance for those who attempt to do so. If my bishop were moved upon by the Lord to ask me to sell my hypothetical house and move to Timbuktu, I would be under condemnation if I didn’t do it, I think. And yet, if he asked me to do the same thing for any other reason, I think it’s safe to disobey. If my bishop’s told me that the Lord wanted his son to marry my daughter, I think I’d tell him where to stick it. The point is, clearly there’s a line. And clearly some people cross it. Some people go *very* far across it, like the bishops who have affairs with the Relief Society presidents, or who go to jail for child molesting, or the Seventy who was excommunicated for apostasy in 1989 (and may or may not have molested children). Obviously a bishop asking you to shave you facial hair, or to wear a suit instead of slacks and a blazer is a totally different league. But isn’t it clear that the line is there somewhere? I think that we have to entrust individual members to make that judgment. I just don’t think there’s any other way to do it. Unfortunately in the current climate of the church, that would probably open a floodgate of second-guessing and disobedience, so it’s a tough topic to broach.

I’d say the current idea of “always follow your priesthood leader and you’ll never be wrong” is right most of the time, and maybe it’s even always right in the eyes of the Lord, since he would hold the leader accountable for taking advantage of the gullible, and arguably not the one who was misled. But what about Mountain Meadows, where the local bishop was involved (and was the one who finally confessed after 15 years later and turned state’s witness).

I don’t know what the answer is, other than to say “follow the spirit.” Which has been my point all along! Don’t take anything I say too seriously. :P

I think one thing stands out, both from Brother Nibley’s statement and from the discussion following. We as imperfect mortals have one dominant flaw, which is the root of all the other flaws–one which has been documented in all the major scriptures, and has always been the downfall of the Lord’s people.

This flaw is pride. For whatever reason, we seem to have an innate need to lift ourselves above those around us. Whether for some that is assuming a “we are better than you” attitude because they comply more closely with the grooming standards and white-shirt/tie model, or others, like myself, who will only wear the white shirt and tie if we know we will be performing priesthood ordinances, or if we have no other shirts to wear, we all fall victim to it.

I recently had to shave off my goatee, which I have had nearly constantly since High School, having received a calling which has a grooming standard associated with it. I had no problems doing so–even though I miss my facial hair greatly, I understand that the blessings of serving in my calling will greatly outweigh my comfort zone of stroking my beard when I consider things. I do this for the same reason that I shave when I am dating someone who dislikes facial hair–I know that it is a sacrifice for which I shall be rewarded.

The rewards are not always this clear, however. I had a conversation with one of the counselors in my Bishopric soon after the loss of my beard, and he mentioned that “we should try to emulate the General Authorities in all things, even appearance.” The context was my beard–never mind that I was wearing my usual Crimson Shirt and Gold tie (what can I say, I’m a USC guy through and through). Honestly, the white shirt thing has never been brought up to me by the leadership, although I was roundly criticized shortly after I joined the Church by a random member in the ward (I didn’t own any white shirts at the time, and couldn’t afford new shirts even so) because I was fulfilling my new calling as Sacrament Coordinator in a Blue shirt. Interestingly enough, no one else ever said a thing about it.

Back to my main topic, though, in all of these things, pride is at the root–and when we find fault in others, while there certainly may be something for which they will be held accountable, we always need to look at ourselves as well, and find if we are lifting ourselves up in pride too. I believe THAT is what the Savior was really referring to. :)

rikker: Yes, follow the spirit. That really is the only solid, unchanging rule. :)

Joe: A good interpretation, I think. :) Pride is nasty. Too bad it’s so dang prevalent…