I would have to have a very good reason for wearing a red hat and it would have to be doctrinal and not cultural. It seems to me that too often we Mormons get caught up in our own cultural baggage mistaking it for doctrine. I do it sometimes as do most of us. So no red hat for me unless a direct command from the Prophet and I prayed and received direct inspiration that it was true and good for me.

Devyn, other animals have fur and thick hides that protect their skin. Divine laws aside, it just makes no sense for a human to run around nekkid– unless they like sand, dirt and insects in their nooks and crannies. Not to mention sun burns and briar scratches.

I’ll note that John’s comment was that he likes to think we’d all wear red hats “If God told us to.” Not “If traditionally we thought the scriptures might have said something like that,” but “If God told us to.” I think he has in mind exactly what you were asking for Devyn; Prophetic counsel and personal revelation.

Yes, but would we be allowed to ponder why we were asked to wear red hats?

Be careful what you say about red hats. Sikhs wear turbans and they are sometimes red.
http://www.aamkhao.com/GoSikh/Design.htm

I had a stake president who told my elders’ quorum that we weren’t worthy to pass the sacrament if we weren’t wearing a white shirt, tie, and a suit. I personally like wearing white shirts to church, but I see no problem if someone wears a blue shirt or doesn’t wear a suit or even if they have to come in jeans and a t-shirt. Was it just this one stake president or is there a sense in the church that men should wear white shirts and suits?

I have had similar experiences with the priesthood holders and the sacrament. I was YM President for awhile in a ward with a bunch of youth who are the only members in their families and their families are quite poor. We would store white shirt and ties at the Church and put them on them when they came on Sunday. Eventually we gave them each a white shirt and tie. Personally, I think it is a bit silly - I don’t care what you wear as long as it is your best.

Re # 2, I wonder about your second prong: unless a direct command from the Prophet and I prayed and received direct inspiration that it was true and good for me.

What about tithing? There’s a red hat that I doubt you would be excused from wearing just because you claimed that God told you that you didn’t have to pay it when it is a blanket command from God through the Prophet (in this case, Joseph Smith and reiterated by all subsequent Presidents of the Church) that applies to all members. Sure, you can choose not to wear that red hat but in doing so you are choosing the ecclesiastical consequences that come with it — in this case, no entry to the temple to perform sacred ordinances that further God’s work among his children.

re # 10, white shirts are a red herring in this discussion — a complete tangent. Seth R. (#5) is more on point with his reference to garments. There’s a red hat that certainly cramps our style — but what good is the world’s style? Celebrating the removal of garments can only be justified by rejection of the idea that God has commanded those who have made temple covenants to wear them. And yet, as noted in the post, some people seem to feel that their removal of the garments after having made a commitment to wear them makes them intellectually superior to Latter-day Saints who still wear them, or special in some way, or sylish. Well, the removers are certainly more stylish but one wonders whether choosing style over solemn covenants is really a net gain in the eternal scheme of things.

john f.,

My white shirt question was somewhat tangential, but not a red herring. I do appreciate you confirmation, however, that there is no doctrine about it, just general recommendations.

There’s also a no-ear-rings policy for passing or administering the sacrament. There was an ear-ring wearing priest in my former ward who would take it off right before sacrament. And when the aaronic priesthood was dismissed, he’d go to the men’s room to use the mirror to put it back in, then go back into the chapel.

He knows better. I think he just wants to honk off the bishop.

Nah, that’s silly. In my last ward (on the East Bench in SLC) and in my current ward (East London) white shirts are not required for passing or blessing the sacrament. It’s a random sample but the two wards are very far apart geographically and culturally.

Again, choosing to avoid engaging the actual reasons given by those select members of the general leadership who have recommended white shirts for performing priesthood ordinances presents its own problems in discussing the issue.

But white shirts are a red herring here. Would you stop eating pork if God told you to through the Prophet who is called to convey that sort of message?

As I understand john f.’s point, it isn’t debating a particular piece of clothing, but whether and to what extent it is proper to submit one’s own will to God’s, no matter how little we understand God’s reasoning (if, indeed, it is even sensible to consider God’s will to be “reasoned,” rather than prior to reasoning).

Did I get the gist of your query, john f., or were you more interested in discussing the good or ill of submission to God when there is no conflict between one’s conscience and God’s will (such as with respect to an otherwise irrelevant article of clothing or jewelry)?

Some clarifications -

1. white shirts and earrings for administering the sacrament.

Seven years ago I was a bishop of a large, active ward and during a stake conference I was interviewed by a president of the Seventy. He asked me if I thought earrings disqualified a young man from blessing or passing the sacrament. When I said yes, he told me I was wrong, and that neither earrings or colored shirts disqualify a YM from participating.

2. Tithing.

John, you might be surprised at how the Lord will allow for variations among his saints. For example, does a SAHM married to a nonmember need to pay tithing in order to get a temple recommend? What about students going to grad school, who are living on loans and grants?

Former Bishop: (#26) That was seven years ago, before Pres Hinckley gave his no earrings speech over the pulpit. Policy changes. You might want to check into it again. My understanding is that “no earrings to bless/pass the sacrament” is the current policy.

Here’s my speculation on the reasoning. Since earrings for men/boys came in style, those who wanted to push the envelope went further with additional piercings, rings, tattoos, etc. As soon as you tolerate one thing, the teens push for the next, in order to push the envelope.

My understanding is that President Hinckley finally drew a line in the sand, and just plainly said no earrings for men. Does that mean that earrings for men are inherently bad? Probably not. But in my view, the excessive body modification that goes way beyond pierced ears really is bad.

I think it’s like someone on the ‘nacle speculated about the BYU dress code. It’s to give the kids something to rebel against at the near end of the spectrum, so that they can feel that they are rebelling, without having to get too far out there.

Matt, I already said that being a Latter-day Saint cramps my style. There’s nothing good about that. All converts or potential converts: beware, you will not be stylish if you join this Church. Also, I seem to have seen somewhere a celebration of the removal of garments for such reasons as they itch, wearing them prevents wearing tank tops, they are hot, they bunch up at the waist; to wit, they are unstylish and God simply wouldn’t be behind something that cramps anyone’s style.

re # 26, on the shirts and earrings, you make an excellent and important point. From my perspective, the great majority of active, believing members understand and agree with your point; it is the ex-Mormons, it seems, who don’t understand this principle and regularly accuse the Church of “white-shirt-supremacy”, even if they choose not to examine the actual reasons given by those in general leadership who have at times endorsed a preference for wearing white shirts while performing priesthood ordinances.

As to you point on tithing, I think it is great that some people find themselves an exception to the general rule. That is one reason that I very much appreciated Elder Oaks’ recent words to the effect that, if you think you are an exception to the rule, you probably are. It looks like Elder Oaks agrees with you.

Well, John, that is a huge silly overstatement. There are plenty of stylish people in church. My recently maligned (by me) looks very stylish in a white shirt. Many of my friends dress quite nicely, one buys a lot of clothes from DI because she’s cheap.

Plus if somebody has become converted to the gospel I don’t think their first concern is how stylish they’re going to look. I think it will be “how will I quit smoking?” or “how am I going to afford tithing?”

I think boys who pass the sacrament should wear white shirts. It looks nice. HOWEVER, if a boy showed up to pass the sacrament in a different color shirt, I wouldn’t say a word until after. Then I would go buy him a shirt and ASK him to please wear it. If he continued to wear a different color shirt, we might have a problem. That’s if I was a bishop.

I don’t think they wear white shirts in Hawaii or Tonga.

But it really bothers me when people start passing judgement on others based on what they wear, ie flip flops, etc. If a kid or even a person comes to church at all, the last thing we should yell at them about is their footwear.

you read me correctly, greenfrog. As the much reviled Elder Maxwell has said, the only thing we really have to give to God is our will.

Is there a way to give up one’s will to God without giving up the faculties that led one to God in the first place? I stumble over permutations of that question frequently.

If my mind has led me to God, should I give up that mind to submit to people who stand in the place of God?

If my heart has led me to God, should I disregard that heart to submit to people who stand in the place of God?

(Perhaps those questions are derails. If so, please disregard.)

I suspect this post and thread are surreptitiously designed to lead readers towards a specific brand of Linux products.

It really bothers me when others pass judgement on others based on what they wear, ie flip flops with socks, etc.

Actually, I can vouch for the fact that Devyn S is not joking when he talks about running around naked.

Our will is the only thing that is truly ours. Are you suggesting that while it might be poetic to think of submitting the one thing that is truly ours to God, it is unclear why God would actually want that?

The “hineinversetzen” exercise is common but not really very useful. Dabbling in it makes it seem that pretty much nothing that we believe God has asked of us makes sense ultimately. Worship him? Why ever would an all powerful being want us to worship him? (Goethe surmised that there was benefit to us from worshipping God, but even that breaks down pretty quickly.) Obedience, however, makes sense if we have the eternal perspective that the Gospel provides us. In that perspective, we are being schooled for a greater purpose — a purpose that we choose whether or not to participate in. Thus, the lessons we learn through obedience, and the kind of souls that we become as we hearken to God’s will, are of ultimate value for some practical end that we might not fully understand right now but that we trust is the purpose of life.