Proper Dress


TheyCallMeMom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just to jump back to judging others by what they wear...

I have a really tough time getting up in the AM and my attention span and concentration isn't the best. One morning I was standing in front of my clothes and I couldn't figure out what I was going to wear. I must have 'zoned out' for about 30 minutes, not able to figure out what I was going to wear. I looked at my clock and saw that I had 20 minutes until sacrament meeting, and I realized that if I didn't get dressed RIGHT NOW I wouldn't be able to go at all. I prayed for guidance and felt prompted to just grab the nicest thing I could and go. It was more important that I attend sacrament than what I wore. I grabbed my very nice dress jeans (you know the very dark colored ones with a crease) and hurred to sacrament. About 10 minutes into the meeting I notice that I have a new txt msg. My friend, sitting a couple people down txted me and asked me why I was mad at God and what I was trying to prove to God by disrespecting him. I was just in shock. It was awful. It was totally inappropriate (not to mention irreverant to txt in the middle of sacrament, I wonder what SHE was trying to prove... haa!) and put me in a really bad situation.

Remeber, judge not lest ye be judged! You don't know the whole story. Let others make their peace with God. It's not your place to question (unless ur the bishop=))!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey, that every opportunity criticizing is really untrue.

Yes, you are right. Criticizing at literally every opportunity would be much too time-intensive, I imagine. Better to pick and choose when the criticisms will harm the most.

However I do think we all have some degree of an inner pharisee, that will allow us to bog down the truly spiritual with an over abundance of rules.

The Pharisees ignored the voice of God standing before them so that they could instead follow their own personal desires and interpretations.

We have the voice of God in the form of our leaders standing before us, trying their best to lead and to teach. One thing they try to teach is the importance of reverence in large things and in small, including such things as wearing a white shirt. Pity that so many allow their "inner Pharisee" to determine that their leader's attempts at teaching and leading are misguided and unimportant. Tragic, really.

How you have morphed a white color shirt into a firm moral standard is your own business.

How you have twisted and misrepresented my position is likewise my business. Of course, I have done no such thing as you claim, and as you well know. Lying is, or should be, beneath you.

A white shirt is not a "moral standard". Obeying your Priesthood leader, sustaining him in his calling, and trying to understand what he is trying to teach -- those things are "moral standards". When a Priesthood leader sets a reasonable dress and grooming standard to try to teach reverence and respect to the youth, it is not our place to tell him what a Pharisee he is.

I would tend to find my standard in partaking of the Sacrament regardless of what color shirt the young boys are wearing. It is the act of the Sacrament and what it represents that holds importance to me.

But this really isn't about you, is it? It's about them.

I could well be a lone voice in the wilderness on this point,

You are no John the Baptist, "Moksha". Trust me on this point.

however I do not think making the Church into a cult of obedience is a way of honoring the Gospel.

So sustaining your leaders (as you have covenanted to do) by obeying their attempts to teach constitutes a "cult of obedience", does it?

Funny how no General Conference messages have been directed toward this dangerous "cult of obedience".

Funny how no First Presidency messages have warned us of this insidious "cult of obedience".

Funny how the leaders in God's kingdom have not taught concerning this perilous "cult of obedience".

In fact, Moksha, it seems that you and you alone are crying out against this horrid "cult of obedience". Why might I believe you in this?

Do you imagine that the Holy Ghost testifies to our hearts of the truth of your words against this evil "cult of obedience" that you warn us against?

Are you in fact a prophet crying out against the apostate Church today, as you have suggested in your own words? If so, I disbelieve your prophecy and him for whom you prophesy.

If I recognize when a fashion whim distorts the meaning of loving worship, then mea culpa.

So your fault is in recognizing the great evils of the bishop in "distort[ing] the meaning of loving worship"? No, I disagree.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our youth are becoming a serious problem in the ward. They fight (there's been literally blood on more than one occasion on a Sunday), swear, throw furniture around tell my husband they dont care, and no matter what he does they wont change (he is the SS teacher), yet they are still allowed to pass the sacrament. The white shirt should not matter. The behaviour should.

Speaking to the Pharisees, the Lord said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

You are correct, of course, that behavior is much weightier than whether you are wearing a white shirt. Young men engaged in immoral behavior have no business officiating in Priesthood ordinances.

But it does not follow that "[t]he white shirt should not matter." The white shirt is, in effect, a tithe of mine and anise and cummin. It is a minor issue that shows our dedication to God and our willingness to obey. If we refuse to dedicate ourselves to God or to obey, but just wear the white shirt, then it's meaningless. But those who are truly dedicated to God and the building up of his kingdom will have no problem wearing a white shirt. We don't "leave the other undone" just because we have the weightier matters under control.

Personally, I appreciate the symbolism of a white shirt, but I can also see the symbolism in any number of other shirt styles. And personally, I think ties are rather stupid and useless pieces of clothing. But white shirts and ties are what we have been asked to wear when officiating in Priesthood ordinances, so I am happy to wear a white shirt and tie when so doing. I think those that complain about white shirts and ties are missing the point. In your case, it appears that much weightier matters are being ignored (though I'm not a leader there, so I have no way of making that determination), but in general, I find that complaints against wearing a white shirt and tie are simply a manifestation of pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, Soul. I think a white shirt and tie is vital. After all, didn't John the Baptist baptize people while wearing a white shirt and tie?

Your sarcasm is ill-placed. What does John the Baptist's clothing have to do with obeying the counsel of our leaders?

On the other hand, individuality needs to be encouraged.

Why? Can you point me to some doctrinal source teaching the importance of encouraging individuality?

I believe the white shirt and tie should be a guideline, while not a reason to ostracize someone with a different shirt. In fact, this is what the actual rules are. Huzzah for the wisdom of the Presidency! :D

Then why the complaints about wearing a white shirt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our ward is dead, no one really cares, they are turning a blind eye so they don't have to deal with the problem and their Parents. If I voice any kind of solution/opinion I'm 'stirring'. :(

I'm truly sorry to hear this, SS. Please hang in there. Remember that the Lord brought the dead back to life. He can do the same with your ward, and you can be a part of that. Don't give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And personally, I think ties are rather stupid and useless pieces of clothing. But white shirts and ties are what we have been asked to wear when officiating in Priesthood ordinances, so I am happy to wear a white shirt and tie when so doing.

I am also not fond of ties. Ties were originally used as napkins and now I believe they are a noose (a hangman's noose). I try to wear one every Sunday though to show respect to Heavenly Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm truly sorry to hear this, SS. Please hang in there. Remember that the Lord brought the dead back to life. He can do the same with your ward, and you can be a part of that. Don't give up.

Thanks Vort. I want to move wards so desperately but DH wont :( . I hope things improve but I doubt it. The ward has always been weak since it split 15 years ago, and just gets worse every year. When our friends come to visit they refuse to go to our ward. One of them says 'I feel suicidal afterwards'. I think this has contributed to my problems with church. Ive started visiting my Dad's ward regularly. Its amazing, like the church I used to love. A breath of fresh air.

I just remembered that not long ago one of the missionaries bore his testimony and mentioned what a hole the town was! He was so shocked he even said this is not how I imagined my mission!! The town is a hole, and it reflects on the ward I think.

Edited by Soul_Searcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your sarcasm is ill-placed. What does John the Baptist's clothing have to do with obeying the counsel of our leaders?

Why? Can you point me to some doctrinal source teaching the importance of encouraging individuality?

Then why the complaints about wearing a white shirt?

Hahah. I think you might have misread this, Vort. ;) I was kidding. However, I'm glad you asked about respecting individuality:

LDS.org - Teaching Chapter Detail - Understanding and Teaching Youth

Ta da! One of the things it specifically states is that the youth need to be respected for their individuality. Straight from lds.org. Done and done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also not fond of ties. Ties were originally used as napkins and now I believe they are a noose (a hangman's noose). I try to wear one every Sunday though to show respect to Heavenly Father.

I heard that to. Neopolian got tired of his troops wiping their noses on there sleeves (Probably an urban legend.

"Never trust a man who would put a noose around his own neck"

(this is why i wear clip ons)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About garments:

They serve more purpose than just for modesty. That is why I always wear it unless it is impractical to do so - like swimming. The most important purpose for me is that "last barrier" when taking it off. I would find it ultra impossible to cheat on my husband if I have to take that thing off to do it. It's just a major sanity check.

But on the same token, in the Philippines, it is HOT all the time. You can die of heat stroke wearing a suit! The Filipino equivalent of a suit is the barong tagalog which is a see-through super thin long-sleeve shirt made of abaca fiber with a tank top underneath. That's what Filipinos wear to weddings, funerals, and what the President wears to deliver speeches and meet with dignitaries.

Also, in the Philippines, it is a 3rd world country. A lot of times, the best dress in your closet is a stain-free t-shirt, pressed pair of shorts, and clean flip-flops. I could just imagine what the American members would think if I send them a picture of their sacrament meeting.

So yeah, I really think the "attitude" and the "purpose" of the dress is what is important. Choosing your BEST outfit to meet in the Lord's house is important - even when the best means t-shirt and shorts.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in the Philippines, it is a 3rd world country. A lot of times, the best dress in your closet is a stain-free t-shirt, pressed pair of shorts, and clean flip-flops. I could just imagine what the American members would think if I send them a picture of their sacrament meeting.

So yeah, I really think the "attitude" and the "purpose" of the dress is what is important. Choosing your BEST outfit to meet in the Lord's house is important - even when the best means t-shirt and shorts.

Well spoken. We are in complete agreement.

By the same token, if a Filipino bishop or branch president asked the young men to wear their best solid-color t-shirt and shorts when officiating in the sacrament, and someone started carping about how prideful that was and how the ripped shorts and striped t-shirt with the stains were more comfortable, I assume you would not agree with the complainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahah. I think you might have misread this, Vort. ;) I was kidding.

No, actually, I caught that, which is why I wrote:

Your sarcasm is ill-placed. What does John the Baptist's clothing have to do with obeying the counsel of our leaders?

However, I'm glad you asked about respecting individuality:

You misread my words or mistook their meaning. I asked:

Why? Can you point me to some doctrinal source teaching the importance of encouraging individuality?

"Individuality" is a fact of existence and must be respected. It no more needs to be encouraged than blinking. The only thing remotely related in the page you pointed to was the part about "Establishing Their Own Identity":

Some youth may try to establish an identity by wearing odd clothes or hairstyles or by expressing unusual ideas. They may do this to draw attention to themselves or to fit in with a group of peers and distinguish themselves from other groups. Generally this kind of behavior does not last long. In fact, if young people sense genuine affection from adults and are given the opportunity to express their ideas freely without being criticized, they will often feel more secure and cease acting in unusual ways.

It would be unwise to try to dress and talk like the young people you teach. Remember that you should be one with them, not one of them.

Nothing there about "encouraging individuality".

Ta da! One of the things it specifically states is that the youth need to be respected for their individuality. Straight from lds.org. Done and done.

We weren't talking about having respect for someone's individuality, the way you might have respect for their handicap, their late-night work shift, or their blond hair. We were talking about encouraging individuality, which you had claimed was important and I had questioned.

To remind you: The topic was the wearing of white shirts. You made a joke about how important it was to wear a white shirt and tie because John the Baptist wore a white shirt and tie. You then claimed that the First Presidency asked for uniform white shirts and ties to avoid a fashion parade (which by the way is almost certainly untrue, based on many comments by apostles about how the young men should look nice and dress respectfully).

You then stated that "individuality needs to be encouraged", seemingly suggesting that some boys might not feel sufficiently "individual" wearing just another cookie-cutter white shirt and tie. I disagree with that assertion. I know of no teaching that we are to "encourage individuality", and certainly nothing to suggest that a bishop ought not to ask his Aaronic Priesthood holders to wear a white shirt and tie for fear of driving away the poor soul seeking to express his individuality by passing the sacrament in blue jeans and a mohawk.

The page you reference suggests otherwise, as well, as mentioned above. It goes on to say:

When youth feel that adults respect and listen to them, they tend to feel secure and free of the need to attract attention to themselves. Work and pray to understand the young people you teach. Reach out to them individually. Ask them about their interests, hobbies, and everyday experiences. Listen to them, and respect their ideas, opinions, and feelings.

In other words: Acknowledge and respect them for the people they are. There is nothing there about "encouraging individuality".

Still wondering why the complaints about white shirts? If the bishop wants his Aaronic Priesthood young men to wear white shirts and ties when officiating in the sacrament, why is that a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Never trust a man who would put a noose around his own neck"

(this is why i wear clip ons)

Policemen in departments that require ties as part of the uniform always wear clip-on or velcro ties for this very reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahah. I think you might have misread this, Vort. ;) I was kidding. However, I'm glad you asked about respecting individuality:

LDS.org - Teaching Chapter Detail - Understanding and Teaching Youth

Ta da! One of the things it specifically states is that the youth need to be respected for their individuality. Straight from lds.org. Done and done.

That may well be the first time I've ever seen Teaching: No Greater Call used to establish doctrine. :D

Re garments: the standard line I've always heard (though never by any official instruction, in the temple or otherwise) is that it's best to wear them at all times except when involved in one of the following activities, dubbed the "four S's":

--Sports

--Swimming

--Shower

--uh . . . yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

Vort, I would appreciate if you did not make posts you disagree with so personal in your rebuttals. I like the concept of sharing of ideas without the need to shout down one another for having a differing ideas.

Moksha, I would appreciate it if you did not intentionally misrepresent my words in your posts (e.g. "How you have morphed a white color shirt into a firm moral standard is your own business"). I like the concept of being honest in our conversation without the need of lying in order to try to make a non-existent point.

I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent the actions of our Church leaders as being mere fads by making false statements about how their actions or motives have changed so greatly in recent years (e.g. "It is truly amazing how the color of the shirt got to be thought of as more reverential since 1995"). I like the concept of sustaining and loving our leaders and trying to help them succeed in their challenging callings, rather than make sarcastic and blatantly false statements that serve only to call their integrity into question.

I would appreciate it if you would stay on-topic rather than change what's being talked about to refer to your own pet peeve. I like the concept of discussing something without having someone "bait and switch", so that (for example) the topic gets twisted from a Priesthood leader trying to teach principles of respect and reverence to the young men into whether or not Moksha finds striped shirts distracting during the sacrament.

I would appreciate it if you did not suggest that a disagreement with your point of view is merely a result of your own ability to "recognize when a fashion whim distorts the meaning of loving worship". I like the concept of understanding and acknowledging another's arguments, even if we don't agree, rather than redefining them into a straw man we can efficiently dismantle.

I would appreciate it if you did not accuse those whose viewpoints disagree with your own as being ruled by their inner pharisee without acknowledging your own pronounced Pharisaical tendencies. I like the concept of trying to understand where others are coming from and giving them the benefit of the doubt until they have removed that doubt through their own words. This need not preclude deep and even intense conversation, but it certainly will preclude poisoning the well on a topic by preemptively calling those who disagree with you "Pharisees".

For my part, I acknowledge that I often take things more personally than I should, and that I sometimes respond more harshly than is appropriate (and certainly than the Lord would have me do). Your criticisms are not unfounded. So shall we take each other's insights to heart? I will if you will. Deal?

As long as I'm on the subject, I would also like the following:

  • Pony
  • Functioning tricorder
  • World peace
  • Twenty million dollars
Link to comment

Vort, I would appreciate if you did not make posts you disagree with so personal in your rebuttals. I like the concept of sharing of ideas without the need to shout down one another for having a differing ideas.

I responded to what you wrote, nothing more. If you don't like the ideas when applied to you, maybe you should avoid the ideas altogether.

Calling Priesthood leaders "Pharisees" because of their attempts to teach respect and reverence is a sure way to get your own pharisaical tendencies scrutinized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that to. Neopolian got tired of his troops wiping their noses on there sleeves (Probably an urban legend.)

"Never trust a man who would put a noose around his own neck"

(this is why i wear clip ons)

I read somewhere that ties were used as napkins at formal meals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that ties were used as napkins at formal meals.

I believe (and the unimpeachable Wikipedia seems to bear me out) that neckties are a modern version of cravats, which were originally just neckerchiefs worn to absorb perspiration and to provide a convenient dust mask in case of dust storms. Wikipedia suggests that neckwear has also been a decorative accessory for many thousands of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I responded to what you wrote, nothing more. If you don't like the ideas when applied to you, maybe you should avoid the ideas altogether.

Don't want to avoid ideas altogether. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, that seems like something the Methodists may require. :)

Calling Priesthood leaders "Pharisees" because of their attempts to teach respect and reverence is a sure way to get your own pharisaical tendencies scrutinized.

Speaking about all of our own "inner Pharisees" is about our making things either too complex or too rule driven so as to lose the original meaning. It suggests we should keep things simple instead and emphasize things of the spirit and not of the world. This is different than saying someone is a Pharisee. As to suggesting that a particular poster has pharisaic tendencies relates back to my request to not put things on a personal basis.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been avoiding this because I find tangling with Vort about as enjoyable as castration, but I figure it's about time I added my comments.

I do agree that the best attire to wear to Church and to administer in Priesthood ordinances is a white shirt with a tie. As with many things, I consider this to be a general principle. If a brother wanted to dress in a green shirt with a red tie to celebrate Christmas, or a pastel shirt for Easter, etc, I'm not going to make a big deal of it. Sometimes, that slight difference in dress can greatly enhance that individuals experience on the special occasion. But such dress should be reserved for special occasions.

Having served in the young men's presidency, I've had some experience trying to teach the young men the significance of wearing a white shirt to administer in the Priesthood. But my discussion toward those young men might vary greatly depending on each young man's spiritual maturity. I might pull one young man aside to encourage him to wear a white shirt more often (or every week) while another young man would make me ecstatic if he showed up in a collared shirt of any color and had a tie with it. In the case of the second young man, stressing the white shirt might do more to confuse him and disrupt his spiritual progress; he needs to develop a sense of service and selflessness before he can understand and reap the blessings of the finer points. I must stress however, that these judgments have to be made on a case-by-case basis, as must all exceptions to prophetic counsel.

In cases where Priesthood leaders do determine an exception is appropriate, they should stress to the individual that extreme styles of dress and grooming are not appropriate for those administering Priesthood ordinances. A Priesthood holder should never dress or groom in a way that pulls attention away from the ordinance and onto himself.

At the same time, members who allow themselves to be distracted and judgmental because of a person's dress are in need of serious self-evaluation.

Let compassion and charity reign for those who administer and those being administered to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking about all of our own "inner Pharisees" is about our making things either too complex or too rule driven so as to lose the original meaning. It suggests we should keep things simple instead and emphasize things of the spirit and not of the world. This is different than saying someone is a Pharisee.

Moksha, this sounds so reasonable that it made me question whether I had just overreacted. So I went back to find out if I had read into your words things that simply were not there and wronged you by misattributing what you had written.

Let us retrace the particulars of this exchange. It began with your wondering:

Wonder if attendance would so up if people were allowed to wear whatever they are comfortable in?

At first glance, a reasonable enough question in a purely theoretical sense, though of course we both know what our leaders have been trying for many years now to teach regarding reverence and respect in dress. Less than two weeks ago in General Conference, Elder Oaks taught:

"How we dress is an important indicator of our attitude and preparation for any activity in which we will engage. If we are going swimming or hiking or playing on the beach, our clothing, including our footwear, will indicate this. The same should be true of how we dress when we are to participate in the ordinance of the sacrament."

Elder Oaks seems much less concerned with people wearing "whatever they are comfortable in" and more concerned with wearing what is appropriate. Nevertheless, your question was reasonable enough. No reason to get into a huff about it. You weren't directly contradicting or questioning the inspiration of our leaders, just making a comment.

You then made another post, wherein you wrote:

On another board, one of the posters related that when he was a missionary in the Philippines, they asked the locals attending the church service which was more important in passing the Sacrament - the white shirt and tie or the boy. The locals all thought it was the white shirt and tie, but he and his missionary companion stated it was the boy. Skepticism ensued.

Sometimes things get twisted around, do they not? Jesus would undoubtedly say that the boy following His way was what he would want. The vision of the white shirt and tie following the way, with perhaps the boy trailing behind seems a bit absurd,

Up to this point, your post seemed honest and meaningful. Indeed, it seemed you had a valid point. Then you finished your previous sentence:

yet even in some of our local wards that seems to be the message. I have heard of the young Aaronic Priesthood boys not being allowed to pass the Sacrament without the "white shirt and tie".

Here, you explicitly compare the instruction to wear a white shirt and tie with the ignorant members who thought a person's clothing were more important than the content of his soul. But as you well know, the two are completely different: A bishop who requires his Aaronic Priesthood men to wear white shirts and ties in order to teach them the importance of reverence and respect, as has been mentioned numerous times by our general authorities in General Conference and elsewhere, is not just an ignorant member insisting that the boy follow around a white shirt and tie.

You then continued to say:

It is truly amazing how the color of the shirt got to be thought of as more reverential since 1995.

You are older than I am, Moksha, and thus doubtless have more experience in the Church than I do. Yet even I know this to be a crock. No later than the 1960s, bishops were asking and sometimes requiring their Aaronic Priesthood charges to meet a dress and grooming standard before officiating in the sacrament. I know that when my older brother was ordained a deacon in 1971, he was asked to wear a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament, as had already been a practice of some years' standing in that ward.

That's 1971, Moksha, twenty-four years before 1995. A few years later when I reached the age of twelve, the same was asked of me. That's 20 years before 1995. What you wrote is false, plain and simple.

Then, just in case we had not understood the criticism of the bishops who would ask such an unreasonable thing of their young men, you added:

I remember when madras and paisley was acceptable, not to mention my favorite blue oxford cloth shirts. What will our inner pharisees think of next?

:)

I guess the smiley was to show how jovial you found the whole issue. In any case, your intent was unmistakeable: Bishops who dared to impose a dress code of a white shirt on their Aaronic Priesthood charges were following their "inner pharisee".

The fact that I understood what you meant is a testament to your ability to communicate clearly. The fact that I disagreed with what you wrote is, I suppose at least in your eyes, a testament to my foolish refusal or inability to see the truth of our leaders' failings as clearly as you. But it is the fact that I had the ill manners to actually point out and respond to what you wrote that you take offense at. To me, that seems a bit silly.

As to suggesting that a particular poster has pharisaic tendencies relates back to my request to not put things on a personal basis.

Since this appears to upset you, I'm a bit surprised that you aren't upset about your own propensity to attribute false actions to a particular poster, as you did here:

How you have morphed a white color shirt into a firm moral standard is your own business.

In any case, you obviously misunderstood me. Like you, I carefully phrased my posts to avoid mentioning specific people and keeping the ideas general:

The point is (say our inner pharisees), just make sure you're showing how much smarter and more spiritual you are than our leaders by criticizing them at every opportunity.
Pity that so many allow their "inner Pharisee" to determine that their leader's attempts at teaching and leading are misguided and unimportant.

No mention of specific individuals there.

In fact, Moksha, the only times I mentioned you specifically were in response to items that were particularly about you that you had brought up, and not mere accusations or some such:

How you have morphed a white color shirt into a firm moral standard is your own business.

How you have twisted and misrepresented my position is likewise my business. Of course, I have done no such thing as you claim, and as you well know. Lying is, or should be, beneath you.

I would tend to find my standard in partaking of the Sacrament regardless of what color shirt the young boys are wearing. It is the act of the Sacrament and what it represents that holds importance to me.

But this really isn't about you, is it? It's about them.

I could well be a lone voice in the wilderness on this point,

You are no John the Baptist, "Moksha".

however I do not think making the Church into a cult of obedience is a way of honoring the Gospel.

So sustaining your leaders (as you have covenanted to do) by obeying their attempts to teach constitutes a "cult of obedience", does it?

If I recognize when a fashion whim distorts the meaning of loving worship, then mea culpa.

So your fault is in recognizing the great evils of the bishop in "distort[ing] the meaning of loving worship"? No, I disagree.

I see no reason why we can't have interesting, stimulating, and mutually respectful conversation on topics on which we don't agree. That's the point of a discussion list, right? But such conversation must be based on honest communication. It's not acceptable to implicitly criticize the Church's leadership, then go all doe-eyed in wonderment and confusion when someone says, "Hey, you're criticizing the Church's leadership."

And if you don't want conversations to become personal, don't make them so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share