Culture Traditions verses Doctrine

[skippy740]

In regards to white shirts, I've heard many stories.

One where a new convert was willing to pass the sacrament, but he was wearing a blue shirt. An older member asked him not to pass the sacrament. The new convert, last I heard, hasn't been back to church since. The older member was my father.

I've heard more than one general conference talk where a Melchizedek Priesthood holder would change into his white shirt, tie & suit before giving a blessing. While I'm sure the message was to show reverence for it, it can appear to mean that you can't give a blessing without a white shirt.

Yes, it is a cultural thing, because I don't recall any revelation or church handbook that specifically says that the priesthood one holds is invalid unless you are wearing a white shirt.

The person, priesthood and faith are what truly matter... not the color of your shirt.

***

However, I do understand unity and purity. Being unified in a kind of 'uniform' when performing ordinances is a preparation for temple work.

It's just that some people put more emphasis on 'form' over 'substance'.

[Dravin]

For the white shirts and ties... My ward enforces it for passing the sacrament (aka non distracting). Since any priesthood holder can and should be able to help pass(assuming worthiness) then they should be ready to do so.

I'd say the Handbook of Instructions makes it fairly clear that white shirts and ties shouldn't be made requirements for passing the sacrament.

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

Link: Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings*

Edited December 5, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I agree the "white shirt" is a cultural thing.

I don't have an issue with it, because it is not an issue where I live...however, I think if I lived outside of the Western United States, I might have an issue. For example, when I was a missionary in Venezuela (eons ago), I had the privildge of working in a small branch with a pair of Elders, one of whom was the Branch President. Our Branch was so small, and the members so poor...we did not concern ourselves with whether or not they were wearing a white shirt. I believe in that situation, they could be wearing jeans and a t-shirt, if that is the best they have, and they are worthy to bless/pass the sacrament then they should do so.

This is why I see it as a cultural issue. I understand the symbolism behind it, and all my boys...even the ones in primary, wear white shirts...no big deal. But I think it is crucial to be sensitive that in some areas finances and cultural dress standards are different...and that is ok. As Skippy said, the person, priesthood and faith are what matter.

[Guest]

So again, we have an old tradition and an effort being made to get rid of it. The most I've heard here of anything current is that priesthood holders are being asked to wear a white shirt if they can.

I've been asked to wear things much more protest-able for much less important reasons.

My point and my concern is that it has seemed to me for awhile that the new tradition is to harp about these things and look for reasons to be offended, when the Church at large is already trying to officially differentiate between what is necessary and what isn't. My mom would call it "borrowing trouble". It's become the vogue, forward thing to look for ways to buck against the standard just for the sake of bucking against the standard.

[estradling75]

I'd say the Handbook of Instructions makes it fairly clear that white shirts and ties shouldn't be made requirements for passing the sacrament.

Link: Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings*

And yet my bishop has explicitly said otherwise... Which leave me in the position of sustaining my bishop, rebelling against my bishop... Of the two the first is the better option in this case. The third option would be to discretely bring that section of the Handbook to the bishop's attention and then go back to the first one.

[Dravin]

And yet my bishop has explicitly said otherwise... Which leave me in the position of sustaining my bishop, rebelling against my bishop... Of the two the first is the better option in this case. The third option would be to discretely bring that section of the Handbook to the bishop's attention and then go back to the first one.

I'd say combine 1 and 3 (because I don't see them being in opposition).

Edited December 5, 2012 by Dravin

[RMGuy]

I'm uncertain as to why a yellow, pink or blue shirt would be any more "distracting" than a white one...but then I'm kind of a live and let live sorta guy.

I figure Jesus showed up in sandals, a robe, and a beard and seemed to do just fine with passing the sacrament and atoning for my sins, but what do I know.

-RM

[Vort]

I'm uncertain as to why a yellow, pink or blue shirt would be any more "distracting" than a white one...but then I'm kind of a live and let live sorta guy.

I think it's pretty obvious why a boy in a non-white shirt in a group of boys with white shirts might be distracting. But I think those distracted would do better to concentrate on the ordinance rather than what color the deacon's shirt is -- hence the Handbook's wording.

I figure Jesus showed up in sandals, a robe, and a beard and seemed to do just fine with passing the sacrament and atoning for my sins, but what do I know.

You may not know that robe, sandals, and a beard were all quite standard for the dress customs of the group Jesus lived in. He did not dress or groom himself unusually, in a way meant to draw attention to himself or to display his wonderful, unique individuality. On the contrary, he condemned as hypocrites those who did so.

[skippy740]

And yet my bishop has explicitly said otherwise... Which leave me in the position of sustaining my bishop, rebelling against my bishop... Of the two the first is the better option in this case. The third option would be to discretely bring that section of the Handbook to the bishop's attention and then go back to the first one.

Sustaining does not mean enabling weakness.

[RMGuy]

You may not know that robe, sandals, and a beard were all quite standard for the dress customs of the group Jesus lived in.

You don't say...I should get out more.

On that same topic, white shirts and ties are not the standard of dress custom for the youth.

-RM

[Vort]

You don't say...I should get out more.

Nothing shameful about ignorance, only willful ignorance.

[RMGuy]

Nothing shameful about ignorance, only willful ignorance.

Thanks. Always glad I can count on you to point out my ignorance Vort. How very Christlike.

-RM

[Vort]

Thanks. Always glad I can count on you to point out my ignorance Vort. How very Christlike.

-RM

?

I wasn't pointing out your ignorance; you were.

[RMGuy]

See...got me again!

-RM

[Vort]

On that same topic, white shirts and ties are not the standard of dress custom for the youth.

They are for every Aaronic Priesthood quorum I have ever seen or been involved with.

[estradling75]

Sustaining does not mean enabling weakness.

You are presuming that the bishop's position is a weakness and not an adaptation he found necessary in this ward

[Vort]

See...got me again!

-RM

I don't understand. What is it you want? Just to have fun flinging false accusations? You apparently want conversation, since you're conversing.

[Guest]

Any choir or other musical group I was in asked that we wear a uniform, whether it was white top/black bottom, a robe, or a purchased/rented uniform, for performances. We were performing as one. . . as a group. It wouldn't have mattered whether our robes, for instance, were silver or red or green, it was that we all wore the same and were united in our appearance, and thus no one stood out. I guess I should have tried harder to feel oppressed by that.

[RMGuy]

They are for every Aaronic Priesthood quorum I have ever seen or been involved with.

You mean on Sundays between 10 and 1? My experience for most of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums I've been around have been Levi's and a t-shirt the vast majority of the time.

-RM

[skippy740]

I'm not in favor of contention either.

White shirts are nice and culturally ideal. However, if one is worthy, they shouldn't be asked to not magnify their priesthood just because they don't have a white shirt.

Teach correct principles and let them govern themselves... yes, even deacons! :)

[Vort]

You mean on Sundays between 10 and 1? My experience for most of the Aaronic Priesthood quorums I've been around have been Levi's and a t-shirt the vast majority of the time.

Obviously. But they are not officiating in the sacramental ordinances the vast majority of the time. When they're going swimming, they wear swim trunks. When they are going to bed, they wear pajamas, or underwear, or nothing. I doubt even you believe they should be officiating in the sacramental ordinances in swim trunks, pajamas, underwear, or the nude.

[Finrock]

Although the handbook of instructions doesn't specify a white shirt, neither does it ban white shirts. It does specify that the sacrament falls under the direction of the bishop and if a bishop determines that white shirts are what should be worn, then in that ward, white shirts are what should be worn. I mean, rebelling against the bishop to make a point or to satisfy your pride isn't the right thing.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited December 5, 2012 by Finrock
Fixed grammar. I think.

[skippy740]

This is NOT meant to be an attack on any particular viewpoint... but:

[RMGuy]

Obviously. But they are not officiating in the sacramental ordinances the vast majority of the time. When they're going swimming, they wear swim trunks. When they are going to bed, they wear pajamas, or underwear, or nothing. I doubt even you believe they should be officiating in the sacramental ordinances in swim trunks, pajamas, underwear, or the nude.

Even I wouldn't recommend it, but I would recognize that if everyone there was actually focusing on what they were supposed to be focusing on, it wouldn't matter if they were wearing any of those things, or none of them.

-RM

[skippy740]

Although the handbook of instructions doesn't specify a white shirt, nor does it ban white shirts, it does specify that the sacrament falls under the direction of the bishop and if a bishop determines that white shirts are what should be worn, then in that ward, white shirts are what should be worn. I mean, rebelling against the bishop to make a point or to satisfy your pride isn't the right thing.

Regards,

Finrock

I like your point.

Does it also mean that the Bishop is also responsible to ensure that EVERY Aaronic Priesthood holder has a white shirt?

If a boy is worthy, but unable to perform his priesthood duties because of a rule the Bishop is imposing, the sin would be on the Bishop, right?