To Dress Formally or Not, That is the Question
There is an immensely entertaining post by Emily S over at Feminist Mormon Housewives, dealing with what constitutes proper Sunday church attire: Sunday Best? But as I was reading the comments, I couldn’t help but ponder the following question:
Why it is that the desire to dress formally for church has remained strong in countries where most members are extremely poor and uneducated, while in the U.S., many members (women in particular) seem to dress more and more casually?
My background is mostly international, and at various times I have lived in third world countries. In the developing areas I have experience with, most members tend to dress in their best as defined by current church practice (skirts for women, white shirt and tie for men).
Women wear their best dress (or skirt and top) to conferences, and their second best outfit(s) to normal Sunday meetings, if they own more than one dressy outfit. Newly baptized sisters seem pleased and eager to acquire a skirt or dress if they didn’t have one before they started attending our church.
Young men wear a white shirt and tie as they bless and pass the sacrament. Most poor countries have markets selling very cheap new and used clothing, and newly baptized men and boys usually obtain a white shirt and a tie soon after their baptism, if not before.
Both adults and children usually arrive at church carefully groomed, and wearing spotless clothing–even if they have no running water in their tin and cardboard shantys or adobe huts, and all water for washing themselves and their clothes has to be hauled for half a mile.
On the other hand, in the U.S. nowadays, one can often see Sunday apparel that seems rather at odds with Elder Holland’s counsel, “Our clothing or footwear need never be expensive, indeed should not be expensive, but neither should it appear that we are on our way to the beach.”
I’m not asking for comments on the appropriateness of any kind of denim, or bare legs, or dressy pant suits. But rather, why do you think the way we dress for our Sunday church meetings in the U.S. seems to have changed so significantly in the last 15 years? And are we losing something valuable which our brothers and sisters in other lands are holding on to?
April 26th, 2006 07:30
In our Albanian branch we struggle to get the message across to the young woment not to wear jeans to church. Probably half the youth are dressed in jeans and sneakers when they come to church. My husband is the branch president and has talked to them about the importance of dressing in skirts to come to church. Worried that maybe they don’t have a skirt, we had an activity to sew skirts and no girls showed up. We’ve even had college girls come back from Ricks and BYU coming to church in jeans. I’ve tried to figure out why. When I asked one girl she said she had one skirt but there was no way she would wear it. It was really frustrating for me at the time I was in the YW. I still get frustrated when I see pants in church but then I have to tell myself that the reality, in a stuggling country where the church is still in its infancy, we should be happy that these members are even there.
Any suggestions for us?
April 26th, 2006 07:31
I think what we may be loosing is our reverence and humility.
April 26th, 2006 07:40
On the topic of denim in general. I have a daughter who is spirited and a major tomboy. She has one skirt that she will wear to church and that’s her jean skirt. Her entire 3rd year of life she would fight and cry with us about wearing a dress or skirt to church and began to really dislike church because of it. When I bought her the denim skirt she began not to protest too much and now she gladly gets dressed for church. She has literally worn the same skirt to church for over a year and a half! (I bought it big.)
April 26th, 2006 07:53
It could be the adage “familiarity breeds contempt” in action. In poorer countries, they enjoy the chance to wear clothes that would be damaged during their usual activities and the change from their daily pattern helps them feel the Sabbath more.
In the United States and Canada however, where there’s more room in a budget for — and more emphasis on — fashion, it has become a burden for many. They already spend the week — at school or their workplace — trying to dress as they feel they are expected to. The church is a spiritual refuge, or ought to be, and some people reject the “Sunday Best” standard as one more burden they don’t want. I know one young mother who was upset with herself because she’d been unable to get her 11-month old dressed by the time they had to leave and so brought the baby in its pajamas. She ducked into the bathroom and changed the baby into the clothes she had brought. My heart goes out to her. I mean, this is an infant! No one should care whether or not the kid was dressed to the nines — but clearly that mother felt she would be judged if it wasn’t.
There is also the other angle: many people, in the church and out, feel that our culture is becoming far too materialistic. No one should feel that they can’t go to church because they don’t have a white shirt and a suit jacket! Spiritual worthiness has nothing to do with skirts or nylons. Jesus wore sandals and a robe! So they rebel against the culturally defined “best” by wearing their simplest clothes.
I admit I’m somewhat biased towards that way of thinking. It pains me and drives me crazy that my husband doesn’t feel comfortable attending church with me because he doesn’t have white shirts. Yes, shirts are easy to get here but we just don’t have the money right now. Besides, the idea of having to buy a seperate wardrobe just for church smacks too much of the Mulekites and their “no poor people in the synagoge” attitude.
One day I was having trouble getting out the door on time. I didn’t have my hair or my make-up done and I just chucked it all. I skipped church that day because I preferred not going to church at all than going without the “appropriate” appearance. That was the day I realized I needed to change my priorities! Which is not to say I’ve totally “released” myself so to speak. I still don’t have the guts to wear slacks to church. Maybe some day.
April 26th, 2006 08:07
I wonder how much of it is the influence of the “seeker-friendly” mega churches where even the pastor wears a hawaian shirt and sandals to services? In general, church in the US seems to have gotten less formal, and that is spilling over to the LDS church as well.
On the other hand, I converted from the Presbyterian church several years ago, and even there, among “god’s frozen chosen”, younger people were wearing jeans to church. On a liberal, northwest university campus, going to church was considered very un-cool; the very opposite of being educated, articulate and rational. Somehow, wearing jeans mitigated some of this- as if it made going to church acceptably ironic or something.
But either way, I think it has more to do with external societal pressures than with internal issues within the church.
April 26th, 2006 08:13
I was at the mall last night, and there were banners hanging here-and-there from the ceiling. They each had a very stylish photo and listed several shops from the mall, with the words “Defining You” at the bottom of the banner. My husband and I were both taken aback, as we realized that most people there most certainly would ‘buy in’ to such a notion as where you shop defines who you are.
Here in the US, and even in other parts of the ‘western first world’ consumerism is so deeply embedded in our collective and individual psyches that trappings such as nice clothing have really and truly lost their meaning. A child’s dress is spoiled by an accident, and the mom just says “We’ll buy you new one.” Our very affluence has left us poor in spirit, poor in gratitude and humility in regard to material blessings.
Having lost our value for such things, it makes sense that we stop associating them with other areas of value, such as church. It is a shame, no doubt. It is also something to rise above, among those of us who see it for what it is. Dress for church as mindfully as one would dress for the temple, put on not just clothing, but a mindset, and use it to set yourself apart from the world.
April 26th, 2006 09:59
It used to be that your Sunday clothes, were just a nicer version of your weekday clothes. The only significant difference was how clean, unpatched, and threadbare they were. After a while the nice sunday dress, or pants would become school clothes, then eventually play clothes. Clothing fell in a spectrum from nicest to worst, how the clothing was worn depended where on the spectrum it fell.
In the spectrum mindset my nicest clothes are just plain my nicest clothes and are appropriate for church. Even if my nicest clothes are old and worse than everyone else’s, they are still my best clothes, and therefore are my church clothes. But we don’t dress in a spectrum mindset anymore, we dress in a category mindset. Clothes fall into categories of church, casual, dress casual, professional, formal, etc. The differences between the categories are arbitrarily defined, overlapping, and blurry, what’s more is most clothes don’t move between the categories as they age.
Right now, my ‘best’ clothes are a polo shirt and a new pair of jeans. They are much newer, nicer, less threadbare, and more unstained than all of my dresses. But dresses are appropriate for church, while my nicest clothes are not because they are ‘casual clothes.’
We’re trying to teach appropriate church dress the language of a spectrum mindset when we enforce it in a category mindset. That is why it feels unfair to tell the woman in a nice pair of jeans that her clothes are inappropriate for church, even though those clothes are her best clothes. She has to go get clothes that fall in the ‘church’ category. I think that we should just go to one or the other, either all category, or all spectrum.
April 26th, 2006 10:04
I agree with Naiah that it reflects a mindset more than a financial constraint.
I served my mission in Central America and can attest to RoAnn’s point. No matter how poor, priesthood holders would make the effort to get a white shirt and tie, even if they were second-hand. It wasn’t about trying to look good for the other members. It was about showing the Lord that they respected his day and his chapel. It’s the same reason why we dress up for the temple, only to immediately change our clothes. How inefficient!
But the church doors are open to all. I would say that when it comes to individuals, I withhold judgment. I don’t know the reason why a man comes to church in something other than “Sunday best” (for all I know, that is his Sunday best). But collectively, there is a trend toward more casual clothes, and it isn’t a reflection of increasing poverty. It is a reflection of the choices made by individuals to be more casual in their attitudes towards church. In fact, many of the men I see wearing bold colored shirts without ties are wearing nice, new bold shirts. They made a choice to wear something more casual.
American members would do well to follow the example of the (truly) poor new converts in the third world.
April 26th, 2006 10:11
Starfoxy,
You make a good point. But it’s probably also important to consider that in the age when your “Sunday Best” simply constituted the best of your weekday clothes, society in general was much more formal than today. Threadbare clothing for Mondays a century ago was probably more formal and modest than brand new clothing for Mondays in 2006.
I think the increasingly casual nature of American society necessitated the shift from a spectrum to a category mindset.
April 26th, 2006 10:30
Ugh.
You all have to realize how utterly rediculous all this obsession over this sounds to my friend whos Blind. We should all be so lucky as him.
Why can’t we get over the clothes we wear? Why, as Naiah aptly pointed out, do we define ourselves by how we dress? Maybe some of you would prefer if the church started issuing uniforms? Then there would be no question as whether the members of your ward were dressed appropriatly. (please hear the sarcasm in that question).
You have to see how all this obsessing over whether members are ‘dressed right’ for church is totally of Satan. Its horrible! If only we worried so much about what was in our heart.
April 26th, 2006 10:38
Posted on behalf of Sylvia:
Hi, thanks for bringing this up - I’ve often pondered this as I’ve lived in several corners of Africa (for the past 7 years for an international organization, and before that 2 years as a Peace Corps volunteer) . The discrepancy between what Americans wear and what people in developing countries wear is not limited to church. My co-workers often comment that the American staff does not dress as formally or nicely as the national staff. They consider it disrespectful and embarrassing, and so do I.
That said, I suspect that one of the reasons that people (at least in the corners of Africa that I know) make an effort to dress well is because it’s one of the few environmental factors they can control. They can’t do much about the corrupt govt. or the bad roads or the poor health and education systems, but they can at least look presentable. One of our neighbors for example is illiterate and works as a housekeeper but from the way she dresses you’d think she was a secretary in a smart office.
I think where some hurt feelings may arise is when Church members have conflicting ideas of “appropriate” when it comes to members from other countries. When I lived in Washington DC I belonged to an inner-city branch which hosted several Nigerian members for a time. One of the missionary couples commented negatively on the Nigerian members’ traditional African dress (perfectly modest and formal), which lead to some misunderstandings.
April 26th, 2006 11:10
I was taught years ago, by my loving mother that sunday dress was the best you could wear. It was freshly bathed, a clean nice dress, nylons or tights, nice shoes, hair done nicely. We are going to worship God, and we should go dressed nicely for him. It is a form of reverance and respect, how would you dress if you were to meet the Queen of England, The President of a Country, or the Pope. You could even add President Hinckley to the list, but if you aren’t going to dress for God are you not going to for him? Likewise I think those that have lower incomes take looking nice and the best very seriously, it is significant to them to wear what they have the best way they can.
I know in my stake and temple district it is going beyond what is worn to church but what is worn to the temple. I have gone and been completely shocked to see brides wearing skirts above the knee that look slopy, I have seen flip flops for shoes, no nylons. They don’t look as if they are going to the temple, but like they are headed out to a bar. I see girls that wear shirts that slide up their backs so men and boys see their bare skin. Is that really reverent or respectful? I don’t think so. I’m not saying we have to spend a great deal of money on clothes, but we do need to keep in mind where we are and what we are doing and why?
The comment was made that people are used to dressing up, or in a required way during the week. Well frankly the dress for work has gone down hill, what used to be dress down Friday is all the time. My children don’t need to wear uniforms to school so that can’t be the issue. I think it is a lack of teaching the importance and sacredness of the day and going to the Lord’s house. Maybe even some lack of respect for the sabbath in general.
I would not put down what is considered best dress for ethnic countries, I have seen some of the most beautiful outfits worn in those areas. Could I pull it off, nope, but how beautiful they are!
April 26th, 2006 11:16
Veritas,
Excellent point. I think President Hinckely should dress in a t-shirt and blue jeans when he speaks at General Conference. And when we go to the temple, we should all wear whatever we want. The Lord looks on the heart, right? Caring about appearance is all of Satan!
(Please hear the sarcasm in the preceeding paragraph).
Nobody in this thread is talking about wearing “fine-twined linens” or judging individuals by what they wear. I don’t care how much President Hinckely’s suit cost. But I appreciate the respect he shows to the Lord and to the members when he chooses to dress formally for worship services.
None of this discussion is about the cost or quality of one’s clothes. It is about the formality or casualness of one’s clothes. Even in the poorest of countries, that is not a matter of means, but rather a matter of choice.
April 26th, 2006 11:35
“Even in the poorest of countries, that is not a matter of means, but rather a matter of choice.”
Thats the thing though, and what I was trying to get at. If it *is* just a matter of choice in wearing the nicest clothes you have then it really *isn’t* a matter of means. But we don’t want just the nicest clothes you have, we want clothes that fit rather specific guidelines. Some people, especially investigators and poor people, just don’t have clothes that meet those guidelines. These same people make a big deal about getting those clothes and keeping them nice, and in doing so reflect their reverence for the Sabbath in their dress. The fact that they make a special effort to get Sunday clothes, increases the likelihood that they will, in fact, be their nicest clothes.
I have a ton of clothes, most of which could potentially meet the Sunday clothes guidelines. They may or may not be my nicest clothes. Dressing for Sunday isn’t special for people who have lots of clothes that fit the bill, so they take it less seriously, and get lazy about it.
“The nicest clothes you have” is always going to be a rather small set of clothes, which in turn makes them special.
“Clothes that meet these specifications” could potentially be a huge grouping of clothes which could make the value of them decrease.
Does that make sense?
April 26th, 2006 12:23
I think Starfoxy has a good point about spectrum and category of clothes. And, with our affluence, we pretty much have too many choices. Which brings me to my point. Our culture values individual differences. Anything goes. We are expected to celebrate our diversity.
We may not realize it, but it influences how we dress. If we are uncomfortable in a certain type of clothing, we reject it. Because we have the right to be ourself and no one should make us conform. We have been raised to think that expectations of dress are unreasonable.
There are definitely pros and cons to this type of insisting on individual “freedoms of expression” attitude in our culture.
April 26th, 2006 12:39
Thank you all for a great discussion!
I have been away from the computer, and have other obligations in a few minutes, but I will be back eventually. Some excellent points have been made, and I definitely want to acknowlege them, and perhaps pose a follow-up question which arises from the comments some have made.
April 26th, 2006 13:10
We don’t have to insist we wear expensive clothes to be obsessing to much over our appearance. Everything in this post, the one at FMH, and others I have occasionaly seen around points to the fact that we seem to feel that how we look is supremly important at church. And its not. Sure we should teach our kids what we feel (which is going to be how we were taught by our parents and our culture) is a respectful way of dressing for different occasions, be it church, temple, work or school. But to sit and stew and argue and debate over whether or not those in our wards or our country or whatever are ‘truly’ dressing ‘appropriate’ shows a total pre-ocupation with the outward appearance of our righteousness. Of course we should be reverant and respectful when coming to church, but to assume this comes with a dress code is an attitude I feel it completly driven by the advisary. We have been conditioned in our society (driven by satan) to think that everything internal is reflected externally, which is just plain wrong. Just because someones clothing doesn’t fit with your personal/cultural idea of what is ‘respectful’ doesn’t mean they aren’t reverancing the Lord.
As for those in third world countries supposedly trying harder to dress nice, well, obviously, is a false observation, in my opinion (I have lived in India and Mexico). They do their best to dress up. And so do we (be it in slippas or heels).
As for JR’s statement in #13 - it isn’t all or nothing, obviously. Just because we aren’t obsessing over our appearance doesn’t mean anyones just throwing their hands in the air and wearing sweatpants to church. Like I said before, one mans wrinkled shirt and khakis is another man’s 3 piece suit. Everyone is trying to be respectful and dress for church. This doesn’t mean their definition of this fits yours, and it doesn’t need to.
April 26th, 2006 13:54
Veritas said: “we seem to feel that how we look is supremly important at church. And its not”
Of course it is not. It is the reverence we feel that is shown in how we dress that is supremely important in this regard.
I do not feel that anyone on this thread is advocating a dress code. So, please do not detracrt from the actual topic at hand by pursuing a strawman issue like that.
RoAnn has posed a sincere question, and it has nothing to do with whether one’s suit is polyester or wool, or even if a sister’s dress is demin or silk. She has noticed an actual trend and is seeking to ferret out the underlying cultural reasons for it. How is it that, over time in the US, we seem to be showing less reverence for our sunday meetings in how we dress? I’ll also add in the temple, as Starfoxy mentioned.
I say:
Which matters more to us–worldly ideals of fashion and appearance or true respect and reverence for God? Of course it is not paramountly important what one wears, so much as how he or she wears it. The best we have to offer, even be it a mite, is what we should be showing.
The trick is, though, that it’s a sliding scale even for each person week-to-week. The new mother who hasn’t had a decent night’s sleep in 4 or 5 days, is not going to spend 20 minutes on her make-up. She’s going to take a nap, and that’s what the Lord woudl want her to do. Sometimes, the best we have to offer is simply to show up, and with that as a given, I turn back to RoAnn’s question with the caveat that all things being equal (as in, exceptions like the new mother aside), why do we not take the effort to show full respect for sunday meetings in our dress?
It is not a matter of being fashionable. It is not even a matter of our appearance.
If my husband were to take me out to the symphony and a dinner at a nice restaurant afterward, I would certainly take the time to fix myself up. I might even take an hour or so doing it. The fascinating aspect of the questio0n comes in in light of such a fact. How is it that the Seattle Symphony rates such preparation and my sunday meetings do not?
Is it the growing conpept of ‘ward family’? Is it a general cultural apathy toward things religious? Is it wordly standards of appearance pulling more strongly on our consciences than our sense of reverence?
April 26th, 2006 14:05
Whoa, Veritas! You seem to be in the attack mode here.
Did you actually read my original post? I don’t think anything in it, or in most of the ensuing comments, indicates a “Total pre-occupation with the outward appearance of our righteousness,” or ” obsessing over our appearance.” And accusing me or any of the other commenters of “false” observations, or attitudes that are “completely driven by the adversary” does not seem to me to accord with the respectful tone of discourse which this particular blog is bent on fostering.
April 26th, 2006 14:09
Naiah saidI
“Is it a general cultural apathy toward things religious? Is it wordly standards of appearance pulling more strongly on our consciences than our sense of reverence?”
I think it is becoming a cultural thing, I’m not sure it is all things religous. As a musician going to a concert, dressing in a dress, and being polite by not speaking is part of training. As I have grown older I have seen less attention being made to attend a concert in a dress, to more speaking and rude behaviour during the concert, and down right rudeness. It isn’t just dress, it is our entire attitude of reverence and respect in general that has gone down. Yes it can be difficult with young children at church to try to dress nice, and be reverent, but I try my best to teach them about wearing “Sunday” clothes. You are so right that we have gotten out of wearing “best” dress, to what ever is in the closet. I do think that worldly pull and worldy style affects what we do and how we think. I’m sure this discussion is as old as time. I try not to look down on someone that comes to church in a more casual style of dress, and converts I give much more slack, same with investigators. It can take awhile in some places and circumstances to find appropriate dress. I do think it is a personal issue, at the same time I do think there are Standards that should be followed. I think Satan wants us to do both, dress down and inappropriately so the spirit can’t be felt, (yes I do think it can have bearing), and second to keep us in the coveting what others have that we do not. Both are wrong and just as detrimental to the spirit of reverence and worship.
April 26th, 2006 14:11
Let me ask the related question - why is it assumed that our dress shows reverence? And why is it assumed that dressing like a successful businessman (white shirt, black suit, tie) is equated with showing the most reverence?
It can’t be the “white is pure” issue — because the focus is (weirdly) all on the shirt. Um, if white is a symbol of purity, and if that’s the reason to wear a white shirt, then why doesn’t the logic also apply to the suit and the tie — and why don’t people get upset about members not coming to the meetings dressed all in white?
The cultural assumption can’t be based on the fact that Jesus dressed that way, because He didn’t. It’s not because Joseph Smith dressed that way, either, because he generally didn’t dress that way either. Yet somehow, we’ve come to accept the idea that dressing like a CEO (dark suit, white shirt, tie) is a sign of righteousness. Meanwhile, dressing like something else — say, a Galilean carpenter — is somehow less reverent.
April 26th, 2006 14:20
I think RoAnns question focuses more on why our attitudes have changed here in the US, in our culture.
I think that some posters by arguing against the question are really saying that they don’t think dress and reverance are related.
So, like I pointed out earlier, our culture tells us that there should not be a relationship between dress and anything. We should dress in whatever way we personally prefer. That is why this phenomenon is happening only in certain types of cultures. It doesn’t have to do with income or anything, it has to do with perceived individual freedom of expression.
April 26th, 2006 14:21
About the white shirt and tie issue- my husband was once taught at a leadership meeting that a white shirt and tie are the uniform of the priesthood. Why might clothing be useful in a uniform sense? A few possibilities: to build unity in a group, to identify yourself with the group, to minimize difference between classes (income, etc.)
April 26th, 2006 14:29
Veritas,
What leads you to conclude that “everyone is trying to be respectful and dress for church”?
RoAnn’s original point provided a convincing explanation why this might not be the case. There is a long-term trend toward more casual clothing at church. What is causing that? Do people think about showing respect to God in the way they dress as much as they used to? Is the increasingly casual dress seen in church a result of changing fashion norms, or changing attitudes toward sacred things?
I can see a couple of explanations:
1. As Veritas says, “everyone is trying to be respectful and dress for church.” There is no difference between Americans today and Americans of previous generations (or members in other countries) in their desire to show respect through outward appearance or their belief that they are succeeding in showing that respect. If this is the case, the trend toward more casual dress could be the result of fashion trends that more conservative dressers are “behind the curve” on. These people believe the phrase “Sunday Best” simply has been updated to reflect modern fashion.
or
2. Members are not trying as hard to be respectful in their outward appearance because they believe it does not matter. People in former generations and other countries who put importance on dressing respectfully were being overly obsessive about outward appearance. If this is the case, the trend toward more casual dress represents a fundamental change in the attitude towards the importance of dressing nicely for church. These people believe the phrase “Sunday Best” is outmoded or even representative of negative attitudes toward dress.
Veritas, based on your posts, it would seem you agree with both of these points, yet they represent contradictory theories. Are people caring as much as they used to, or are they not? These are interesting questions, though surely the fate of the world does not rest on them. But a discussion about them hardly constitutes “obsessing”.
April 26th, 2006 14:45
cont. from above
Kaimi, why is it that for generations people did assume there was a relationship between dress and reverance but that has started to change? What has changed?
I think you might want to examine why you object to the idea that standards of dress should exist. I think we should really think about how we are a product of our place and time.
April 26th, 2006 14:47
JR, very well put. I think that we are a little bit of #1, but mostly #2.
April 26th, 2006 14:52
JKS,
Sure, dress can relate to reverence. The focus on white-shirt-and-tie is as much “a product of our place and time” as anything else, though, isn’t it? When did we suddenly accept the inordinate focus on looking like a 20th-century businessperson? When did white-shirt-and-tie become the pinnacle of reverence? That’s a product of the past 40 or 50 years itself. Perhaps the backlash against the recent “look like a businessperson = be reverent” norm is taking place because that wasn’t a very good idea to begin with.
What does a carpenter wear to work, in 2006? She probably wears jeans, a work shirt, boots. How would a carpenter (dressed as such) be accepted in our church in 2006?
April 26th, 2006 15:10
Well, Kaimi, maybe we accept certain dress standards today (which in tropical countries do not include a suit) not because Jesus dressed that way, but because living apostles and prophets have recommended them to us.
And they seem to recommend them not as a way to show everyone how righteousness we are, nor as a Platonic ideal standard of reverent dress, but rather as one simple way (not necessarily the most important, or the only way) to show reverence and humility (as Eric, Tigersue, JR of Dallas and Naiah have pointed out).
mullingand musing (m&) used an extensive quote from Elder Holland on the FMH thread, which includes this explanation, “When we come to worship the God and Father of us all and to partake of the sacrament symbolizing the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we should be as comely and respectful, as dignified and appropriate as we can be. We should be recognizable in appearance as well as in behavior that we truly are disciples of Christ, that in a spirit of worship we are meek and lowly of heart, that we truly desire the Savior’s Spirit to be with us always.
Jeffrey R. Holland, “To Young Women,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 28
As JR from Dallas put it (#8), referring to members in a Central American country, “[Dressing in a white shirt and tie] wasn’t about trying to look good for the other members. It was about showing the Lord that they respected his day and his chapel.” Your point about choice (#13) also seems crucial to me.
Jen, and Sylvia, thanks for your contrasting experiences from Albania and Africa. Every country is different, and I didn’t mean to imply all developing countries were the same.
Starfoxy, thanks again for pointing out the distinction between spectrum and category mindset (#14).
Most of you, including Naiah, Laura w, Proud Daughter of Eve,Tigersue, JKS, JR, Starfoxy, (sorry if I left anyone out!) mentioned worldly standards as being one of the factors in the increasingly casual dress style in the U.S., and I think that is true in most European countries as well.
Veritas said (#17): “Everyone is trying to be respectful and dress for church.” I wonder about the word “everyone.”
As JKS mentioned (#15), ” Our culture values individual differences. Anything goes. We are expected to celebrate our diversity,” and, “We have been raised to think that expectations of dress are unreasonable.” Perhaps for some of us, the desire to look fashionably unkempt, or to protest standards we feel are ridiculous, or to express our individuality in ways we know are likely to shock, is subtly or overtly determining what we choose to wear on Sunday.
Once again, I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that we should judge others! But we may want to examine our own lives to see if we have let worldly values influence some of our choices more than we truly wish or intend them to.
.
April 26th, 2006 15:24
While I was writing my long comment, several more comments were made. Thanks to JR (#24) for pointing out some problems in logic that have arisen in previous comments.
CJones (#23) pointed out some great reasons why certain elements of “uniform” dress can help us as we strive to become more unified and Christlike. I agree that in at least some parts of Latin America, men seemed pleased to wear a white shirt and tie on Sunday (even if those things were part of a school or work uniform on weekdays) because it helped them feel a part of a worldwide priesthood brotherhood.
April 26th, 2006 15:47
Sorry if I sound like Im on the offensive, not trying to attack anyone personally, but long before this post, or the one at FMH, or the others that have occasionally been around, our cultural obsession with dress has been weighing heavily on my mind. I think pent up frustrations are surfacing and Im not expressing myself very well.
Many of you have asked why I can assume everyone is trying to be respectful in coming to church. My question is, how on earth could you know otherwise? Have the members you have obeserved, whom you aren’t trying to judge but clearly are, told you that they could care less about church , that they don’t hold any reverence for the sacrament? Of course they haven’t. But you are assuming this is the case because they are not wearing to church what IN YOUR MIND denotes reverence or respect. Whatever happend to not judging a book by its cover? Are we supposed to market ourselves at church to make sure our fellow saints know exactly how we feel about the Savior? Should we not be focusing our attention on the sabbath, as on every day, how we appear before the Lord? How can you assume that because someone wears flip-flops
What my whole point is, is that we shouldn’t be so concerned with what other people think. You shouldn’t assume that because someone is wearing something you find out of the norm, that they are wearing it to make a statement. In doing so, you are assuming they are dressing for you instead of for church. This denotes an underlying attitude that you (speaking collectivly here) are dressing for others, and not for church. You are also giving the members in the third world a whole lot more credit than your first world brothers and sisters - you give them the benifit of the doubt (because their choices conform to your ideal) and not those here (whose choice to not fit what you believe to be ‘reverant’).
As is illustrated by the Nigerian sisters’ sunday best, a Fijian’s sunday best, an Indian’s sunday best or your sunday best….there is more than one way to dress in respect of our Savior. I think members in the US understand that and dress to their concience. Do some not? Im sure they dont. Do you know who they are? Not unless it yourself. Hence my statement that EVERYONE is trying to be respectful.
April 26th, 2006 15:50
Jen (#1) You brought up an interesting point when you mentioned that in your Albanian branch you “even had college girls come back from Ricks and BYU coming to church in jeans.” So your situation is not one where no one had ever seen young people wear anything but sneakers and jeans. It seems like your YW are just choosing to go with comfort and the locally accepted style of dress. In much of the world jeans are definitely “cool.” I have spent almost no time in Eastern Europe, and I suspect that dress standards there are different from those of most of Latin America and even of Western Europe. Could some of the YW fear giving the impression of “putting on airs” by wearing a skirt?
I absolutely agree that you should just be glad if the youth are coming to church! Do the YM dress in a similar manner? Jeans and sneakers instead of white shirts and ties?
April 26th, 2006 15:53
Hahaha, joke comment follows:
Kaimi said: “backlash against the recent “look like a businessperson = be reverent””
That’s it! I have the answer! It’s all the fault of ‘casual fridays’!!!
:P
April 26th, 2006 16:02
Veritas, thanks for mentioning that you did not intend to seem to be attacking commenters personally.
In response to your accusations that on this thread we are being judgmental, are “dressing for others, and not for church,” favor members in the third world over those in the U.S. etc. I can only repeat what I wrote in comment #28:
Once again, I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that we should judge others! But we may want to examine our own lives to see if we have let worldly values influence some of our choices more than we truly wish or intend them to.
April 26th, 2006 16:12
Again, Veritas, I think you’re on a sidetrack next to the main question.
Nice clothes still exist, and yet, that is not what many people are wearing to church these days. How is it that the idea of “Sunday best” seems to have fallen by the wayside?
This post is based on an observation, not a judgement. The question posed asks for our conjecture as to the ‘why’ behind the observation that has been made. A more general lack of reverence or a pervading spirit of cultural apathy has been posited as a possible explanation. No one is making unkind judgements. You have mentioned the tools of the adversary, and that is exactly what we are trying to distill here–what tools is he using in this area? Is this observation even indicative of such a problem? (You would perhaps propse that it is not; in which case I would like to hear your theory as to what is behind such a trend, no moral judgement needed, just social theory. Let’s hear it.)
Rather than a criticism of the discussion or the question, how about some positive participation. You are clearly someone with thoughts and feelings on this score. No need to be adversarial, and really you must understand that that is quite unwelcome here. Please do, though, share your opinion of the matter at hand.
The trend of a more casual attitude about dress for church has been observed. What do you see as possible explanations for it?
April 26th, 2006 17:14
Thanks for helping us focus, Naiah!
Several comments have mentioned possible explanations, some of which seem to reflect the individualistic tendencies of our culture which JKS brought up in #15 & #22. For example, Proud Daughter of Eve (#4) said: “The church is a spiritual refuge, or ought to be, and some people reject the “Sunday Best” standard as one more burden they don’t want,” and, “Besides, the idea of having to buy a separate wardrobe just for church smacks too much of the Mulekites and their ‘no poor people in the synagogue’ attitude.” Perhaps Elder Holland’s remark quoted in #28 answers those concerns.
Naiah gives some explanations in the form of questions in (#18) “Is it the growing concept of ‘ward family’? Is it a general cultural apathy toward things religious? Is it wordly standards of appearance pulling more strongly on our consciences than our sense of reverence?” I think I would have to pick “d. all of the above.” You have summed up beautifully what may be the most common explanations, Naiah.
April 26th, 2006 17:38
Just reading this I realized that I had talked about obiedience on my personal blog. Our Stake President has asked our stake to dress in specific ways for general conference and also for our Sunday meetings. I had many people say there is no way they would wear nylons ever, things like that. How much of it is our personal pride that is keeping us from dressing our best? How much of it is the 3 hour block that has us wanting to put our comfort first? (Yes I’m putting myself there because I have sacrificed my best to be comfortable some Sundays). I also know I don’t do my hair the way I normally would with the early schedule, 8:30 am meeting times. So how often are we making excuses because we don’t want to do something so we don’t. I don’t think alot of the casual dress to church is because of poverty. I know there is some of that, but on our developed country most people still have more clothes, more shoes than most of the 3rd world countries that take dressing for best seriously.
April 26th, 2006 21:05
Re; Kaimi’s wondering about how proper church attire=CEO attire, I have a friend who wondered what proper church apparel would be like if the restoration had happened in Japan, China, or any East Asian country. He suggested that we may be saying that the Yellow-orange of the priesthood robes (like the Tibetan monks wear) reminds us of the the sun, that gives light and life to the world, just like Christ, instead of saying that white dress shirts remind us of the purity of Christ. We may also be discussing that the western practice of keeping shoes on in a chapel reflects a far too prideful approach, and that being barefoot shows more respect for sacred spaces.
The point is there isn’t anything inherently special about our style of church clothes, other than the meaning we give to it. The question isn’t just why don’t we give the clothes we are expected to wear more meaning, but why can’t we give that meaning to other clothes when the attitude they are worn with is the proper one?
April 27th, 2006 02:01
Starfoxy, Your friend has brought up an interesting point. It could well be that had the restoration taken place somewhere else we would now have different dress guidelines and ideas about their symbolic significance.
However, the Lord did not reveal to Joseph Smith that the modern holders of the restored priesthood should adopt the dress of Catholic monks, or even the collar and/or cassock of the priests of other Western churches, so it is probably unlikely that He would have recommended Tibetan robes even if the restoration had taken place in Tibet. On the other hand, the removing of shoes when entering sacred buildings sounds like a practice that might well have become church policy if the restoration had happened in a country where that was a generally accepted practice.
Sunday and temple dress guidelines have obviously evolved slowly over time (as have guidelines on masculine facial hair); and they tend to be on the very conservative side of what most Christians would consider dignified and appropriate clothing, as Elder Holland specified in the quote in #28.
Kaimi # 27 said “Perhaps the backlash against the recent “look like a businessperson = be reverent” norm is taking place because that wasn’t a very good idea to begin with.” The fact that you used the term “backlash” seems to indicate that one of the explanations for people in certain places dressing more casually is to rebel against authority when they don’t like what the authority says. I would agree with that explanation.
Starfoxy (#37), perhaps you are also suggesting resistance to authority as an explanation. Some people choose to give primacy to their individual judgment over that of Church leaders in matters of dress. In that way of thinking, we personally (rather than “we as members of a group”) give meaning to what we wear. As JKS put it in #15, certain cultures assert that, “If we are uncomfortable in a certain type of clothing, we reject it. Because we have the right to be ourself and no one should make us conform.” As long as we feel reverent, whatever we wear is fine. I would agree that this kind of individualism is a factor for many people in both taking away meaning from clothes formerly regarded as appropriate, and investing meaning in clothes that are regarded as more comfortable or stylish.
April 27th, 2006 03:00
I would say it’s specious to assert that how you look on the outside matters not at all, because God only looks on the heart. If your relationship with God were the *only* question, that assertion might stand. But then, why have an institutional church, wherein you’re constantly admonished to work together with your fellow human beings, and attend - in person - your meetings every week? The GAs have said it does matter how you dress, what you wear. The same holds true still for a lot of workplaces. How you present yourself in dress and grooming really speaks to other people (a big part of the ‘90% of communication is non-verbal,’ etc.)…so instead of considering it *only* a form of self-expression, it is also a form of interpersonal communication. And while God might not care how you communicate physically/externally with God (although, this is also debatable - as I think we’d verge into WoW territory), God might care how you interact with your fellow humans: Are you being prideful? Are you communicating rebellion? Are you trying to put others at ease and not assert yourself over the community? Are you judging? Looking to be judged and then have a righteous reaction to such perceived judging? Are you communicating love and openness to your fellow humans? These are all clearly hypothetical, but it’s where my mind is wandering with this train of thought.
*IMO* it can be its own form of pride (and/or immaturity) to say that what you wear matters *not at all*. Aside from the African and Albanian examples, we’ve mostly been talking about the US (and I would extend that to most western, developed countries). And unless you just lived through a natural disaster, I’m going to assume you have more than flip-flops available to wear. The US is one of the richest countries in the world, so why would you *choose* to wear flip-flops to a contextually important environment like Sunday meetings? Clearly, with other choices available to you, you are *choosing* to pick out flip-flops. Or a non-dressy t-shirt. Or a ratty or casual-looking skirt. Etc.
What you’re wearing does communicate how you feel about yourself, about others, and about God. To say that it doesn’t - or that it shouldn’t and anyone who says otherwise is just being judgmental, is a shaky ground from which to argue, *IMO*.
PS - All of my above ‘you’s are rhetorical - I wasn’t responding in particular to any of the comment numbers, but rather my overall thoughts reading the entire thread. I usually try to substitute ‘one’/’they’/’people’/etc. for the ‘you’ that can come across as accusatory/inflammatory, but I am hurriedly posting at work.
April 27th, 2006 06:20
“Nice clothes still exist, and yet, that is not what many people are wearing to church these days….This post is based on an observation, not a judgement.”
How is this statement not a judgement? This illustrates the point I am trying to make. You are giving yourselves this big pat on the back for not judging, yet the whole discussion is based on a judgement you are re-naming an observation. My whole point in response to the question of “what is the explination” is that the explination does not lie in why ‘they’ are wearing ‘more casual’ clothes but in ‘you’ taking issue with it…this is where the advisary is taking hold. I am saying you are asking the wrong questions and creating problems where there are none.
April 27th, 2006 06:45
Roann,
I think your right. To the Albanian YW a skirt or a dress must symbolize something negative they don’t want to communicate.
The YM wear jeans and sneakers too. They bring their ties in their pockets and put them on at church and take them off directly afterwards. I’ve heard that a tie signifies a “villager”.
I’ve also been surprise (in general) about how important brand names and I mean BIG names like versace and fendi are to the young kids. I teach high school students and just the other day I saw one of my students taking off his belt to show off the versace brand name to friends, saying “eh? eh? you like my belt?”. This is a country where the average yearly salary is 250 dollars.
April 27th, 2006 07:20
Jen,
I know next to nothing about Albania so my theory could be way way way off base. I have a friend who went to an Eastern European country as part of an exchange program at BYU. While she was there she was *instructed* to not bathe often, not wear nice clothes, and to try not to look good in general. The reason they gave for these bizzare instructions because violence against women was common, and hard to prosecute, and if anything happened the program would probably be shut down. They felt that if the girls were not at all attractive, or obviously foreign then they would be safer. (I find part of that reasoning fallacious, but that’s for another time)
Might there be a similar fear-based reasoning behind the aversion to skirts and dresses on the part of the women and girls? They don’t want to act foreign, draw attention to themselves, or wear clothes that are somehow dangerous to be in?
April 27th, 2006 08:14
Veritas,
“the whole discussion is based on a judgement you are re-naming an observation”
There is no need to split semantic hairs here. A trend can be observed and noted and discussed without any inherently negative ‘judgement.’ Judgement implies a moral ranking of the observed, and no one here is out to condemn anyone. If there is a genuine social trend or influence behind it, then we, ourselves, can be better aware of any pull it may have on us.
“My whole point in response to the question of “what is the explination” is that the explination does not lie in why ‘they’ are wearing ‘more casual’ clothes but in ‘you’ taking issue with it…this is where the advisary is taking hold. I am saying you are asking the wrong questions and creating problems where there are none.”
I totally see what you are getting here, and yet I still do not see it in terms of a counterpoint to this discussion–I still see it as a sidetrack to the main issue (as in parallel to it; think train tracks). If you would be interested in writing a guest post, reframing this issue and creating a forum for its discussion in this light, do let me know. I’d be happy to post it for you.
April 27th, 2006 08:39
I think here in the US people have become somewhat lazy (for lack of a better word) about how we are dressing now compared to fifteen years ago. There use to be a time when in the US, generations ago, where men wore suits with hats to work, and when they were at home it was a casual slack (even my husband remembers his Grandfather wearing hats). Ladies wore a nice dress in the home, but when they went out they put on a nicer dress. People even use to dress up nice when they were going for an evening out, that doesn’t happen anymore. My husband did point out once to me that people in some Latin cultures people still (even today) dress there best to go out. As to the question of “why do you think the way we dress for our Sunday church meetings in the U.S. seems to have changed so significantly in the last 15 years?” My thought on that is with so many options nowadays as to what to wear to school, church, the temple, out on the town, etc., people are choosing to be more casual in the way they dress. And with the question “And are we losing something valuable which our brothers and sisters in other lands are holding on to?” Maybe its because the US has become more relaxed then other countries, that we push the limits to “see what we can get away with” or that we take for granted all of the luxuries, (so many clothes and styles to choose from, having larger incomes than most foreign countries, etc…) that we have simply because we live in the US.
Not sure that this really expresses all that I wanted to say, or how I wanted to say it, it seems to come out different when I put all my thoughts on paper…but there it is.
April 27th, 2006 11:40
Another factor is the lack of a consistent rule or standard.
What we have are (1) general statements made at a high level, saying “dress reverently,” added to (2) a broad array of often inconsistent and ad hoc statements made by individual leaders on the specifics of that.
The church has no official position on white shirts or denim skirts or anything else. The church asks us to dress reverently.
Added layers of detail are often brought in by members or leaders who then tie them to the same standard of obedience - “God says to dress reverently, therefore if you wear a denim skirt you’re not listening to God.” That kind of statement generates resentment and backlash because it’s wrong and overstepping. Yes, God says to dress reverently, but God doesn’t say “denim isn’t reverent.”
And even when individual apostles weigh in, it’s not clear how much of the content is their own and how much of it is official church policy. (This is similar in many ways to the “can I play classical music for prelude” debate that just occurred at T&S. Some apostles really hate anything other than hymns, and there’s one Ensign talk on the topic. Others apostles and general authorities actively encourage Bach and such in prelude music. There _is_ no official position; attempts to leverage a patchwork of individual statements into something resembling an official position are bound to fail, and may cause resentment.)
April 27th, 2006 12:02
I was in a Target a few days ago trying to find some maternity T-shirts. I passed by the Jr. Miss (trendy) section and was shocked to see the condition of the “new” T-shirts being sold there for $15.99 a piece. It looked as if the shirts had been filled with rocks and dragged behind a dump truck on a dirt road. The collars and hems were all frayed and torn, and I doubted that after purchase they would last more than a few months. I just turned 30, and I tend to follow current trends in what would probably be classified as stylish business-casual womens attire, so I’m not that far “out of it,” but I was still struck by the idea that this degraded article of clothing was not only being sold as new, but as part of the latest stylish trend in clothing.
In answer to the question, “Why do you think the way we dress for our Sunday church meetings in the U.S. seems to have changed so significantly in the last 15 years?” I would simply say that in my opinion, U.S. society (as part of our downfall) is becoming more casual in general. Casual in intellectual development, religious devotion, political awareness, etc…and in fashion.
I think that the ever-more-casual (and ever-more-revealing) fashion trends for common dress have been slowly increasing over the last few decades, influencing the teenagers who have become today’s adults. Now those adults are still trying to dress casually in the style they are used to rather than looking “older” like their mother, father, grandmother, or grandfather. Popular media is screaming at us to be look younger, get thinner, surgically enhance your body, color/dye your hair, etc. Unless you look less than the age of 30, it is not “cool” to look your age.
On the other side of the LDS women’s dress spectrum, I think there is a mindset that because society exerts so much pressure to look good, that it is actually more true and spiritual to care less about how you look. This may explain the example of the women that I know that are very spiritually dedicated, fulfill their callings, have their food storage stocked, their children in tow, yet appear every Sunday in their T-shirt, Mormon jumper, and worn casual sandals, with no particular hair-style or makeup. They are also the first to tell you, “You’re a young mother, or you have children, or you have a cold, etc…you don’t need to care about what you look like!” (But, I like to care!)
Frankly, whether a woman is following current casual fashion trends, or taking the “it’s what is on the inside” approach, they look sloppy. Yet by knowing them, I know that they are very faithful Latter-day women. That is why dress is important. Whether right or wrong, we all make a judgement, an assessment, of what we see before us. If I didn’t “know” these women, I might assume that they were casual in devotion, as well as in dress. Why should our missionaries have to follow a specific dress code that we can’t follow once a week?
I personally feel better when I care about the way that I am dressed. In religious settings, I feel more spiritually ready when I am well dressed. It may be psychological, but it is all psychological.
April 27th, 2006 13:22
RE #39, Thanks for some very perceptive remarks. I think you have articulated beautifully some of the “communication” aspects of the way we dress, and how pride might enter into the equation.
Veritas (#40) I think Naiah has answered for me in her #43.
April 27th, 2006 13:25
Jen (#41) Very interesting to hear how at least some of the young people in Albania are getting pulled into the whole materialistic “brand name” status game. Their dress may be mostly a symptom of a far deeper problem. Elder Packer has observed that (paraphrase here) that teaching doctrine will change behavior better that teaching behavior. That may be the best approach to help the youth combat the culture that surrounds them.
I remember encountering a similar situation when our family was visiting Utah many years ago. We learned that some of the teenagers wore their tops wrong-side out so that the “in” brand name would be visible. I guess those items didn’t have logos on the outside. We also heard that some girls would actually query others on where they had purchased their brand name items. Wo be unto anyone who admitted to shopping at an outlet store rather than Nordstroms!
April 27th, 2006 13:33
Beanie (#44) I think you are right on target with your remarks. U.S. culture has changed at a different rate than many other countries. This may well mean that the differences some of us have observed will gradually disappear, and much of what is now termed casual, will eventually become the norm for dignified, formal attire. I also agree that declining formality in dress may be because “the US has become more relaxed then other countries, that we push the limits to “see what we can get away with” or that we take for granted all of the luxuries, (so many clothes and styles to choose from, having larger incomes than most foreign countries, etc…) that we have simply because we live in the US.” Well said.
April 27th, 2006 14:15
Kaimi #45, Yes, I agree that “Another factor is the lack of a consistent rule or standard.” And some problems definitely can surface when local leaders get very specific. But then, problems arise over advice from local leaders over many, many other aspects of our lives, don’t they?
Audrey (#46) This essay is a gem. After your very scary introduction (I’m so-o-o glad I don’t have teenagers right now!), you have pulled together ideas mentioned by others on this thread in a very coherent and articulate way. Interesting how such conflicting motivations can engender such similar results. What RE (#39) said about communication through dress fits well with what you are saying about why dress is important.
April 28th, 2006 13:24
So sad I came so late to the conversation. It is one of my favorites! Although I have a feeling Veritas would have chased me away early on. Having been a part of the “evil” world of fashion, I have strong personal views on the subject which some people have called materialistic and judgemental. BUt hopefully I will stay away from that here.
I think the casualness comes from how our whole society has changed. Manners, etiquette, and respect are not valued or taught anymore. My mother is on the older side, is very conservative, and old-fashioned. She spent a lot of time teaching these things to us as children and teenagers. But, this also made for some crazy rules. My sisters were not allowed to wear pants to school. When I came around 7 years later, I could wear pants, but not jeans (to school). Because jeans were for yardwork. Red nail polish meant you were a prostitute and bare legs were completely disrespectful. In her frame of reference, certain fashions communicated certain things, whether the wearer intended or not. She could have used a little more “world” in her perspective in my opinion.
When it came to church, she would always dress up (dress or skirt and blouse) to VT or attend Homemaking meeting (as well as sunday meetings). I don’t follow her in that (except for sunday meetings) but I probably take dressing for church and the temple a little more serious than some people my age because of the example of my mother. And I knew she dressed the way she did not because it was expected or required, but because it was is one way she communicated her respect for the sabbath day (and R.S. and the calling of Visiting Teacher, etc).
Our appearance does speak (and not just because “evil” people judge us). You can study civilizations and time periods and learn about their values and ideals based on what was worn. It is important to think about what we are saying when we get dressed for anything. I think we can also think about how others might interpret our clothing language-especially at church because we are part of something larger than ourselves. I think the bretheren are smart to keep appearance principles (mostly) vague because so much depends on geography and generation.
April 28th, 2006 15:34
Carrie, Thanks for dropping by–IMO it’s never too late to comment if the post can still be found on the site!
I agree that the increasing casualness in dress is part of a bigger cultural change where in many places, “Manners, etiquette, and respect are not valued or taught anymore.”
You have also brought up the relevance of both geography and generation. In at least some tropical countries, where chapels have no air-conditioning, I have seen men generally wear short-sleeved white shirts to church. Women usually wear dressy sandals, and don’t generally wear nylons. In some areas, members wear traditional native dress, adapting it for the sake of modesty when necessary.
I am now definitely part of the “older generation.” My mother was like yours in that she taught me that a part of showing respect–for God, and for other people–was “dressing up” at appropriate times. For her, and for me, that came to mean that although we changed our way of dressing over the years, at times we were more in line with the conservative wing of fashion. My mother was an excellent seamstress, and the clothes she sewed for herself and for me were always in fashion, while also being modest. Because I am older, I will probably always feel more comfortable in a skirt when I go visiting teaching; but I see no lack of respect in other sisters wearing pants when they visit teach nowadays. Different generation = different perception of “respectful” in that situation.
You zeroed in on one of the important things about Sunday dress when you said, “Our appearance does speak . . . . especially at church because we are part of something larger than ourselves.”
That brings us back to some interesting questions:
1. Can we accept the counsel of the Brethren to regard our manner of Sunday dress as a way to demonstrate respect and reverence?
2. Are we willing to follow the guidelines of our leaders for three hours a week?
3. If expressing our individuality in our dress is important to us, can we find ways of doing that, while still following the guidelines?
April 28th, 2006 21:52
I remember when I was a deacon, I wore a corderoy blazer, which was my Sunday best. Other kids made fun of me and called me “Cordy” because of it. I don’t recall seeing GAs in corderoy jackets, but at the time, that was my Sunday best. I wear more expensive clothes now that I wouldn’t call my Sunday best, and yet I wear them to Church, instead of my one suit.
I don’t like to wear suits. I prefer to wear dockers, a short-sleeved shirt and a tie. That’s what I normally wear to church.
However, when I go to church at my folks ward, I wear my suit with a white-long sleeved shirt and a nice conservative tie. I mostly do it out of respect for my father.
Which is my “Sunday best?” Which should I be wearing? I know what I should be wearing, because I know what I consider to be my “Sunday Best”, and yet I still don’t wear it most of the time to Church. I think that is trend that RoAnn beleives she has observed, and is thus trying to explore a reason, or answer for.
I can tell you that if a GA were to show up at my ward, I know which of my two outfits I would want to be wearing.
Now, if a clean pair of ratty jeans and a clean Budweiser shirt were the “Sunday Best” of a person, then I wouldn’t see any issue with that. As Veritas pointed out, it is the intentions of the person that matter, not the outward appearance.
However, I think I am on the wrong track when I wear my suit to a job interview, and more casual clothes to Sacrament meeting. I may be dressing up for Church, but am I wearing my Sunday Best?
On a slightly similar tack:
A few months back, an NCAA women’s championship team (lacrosse?) visited the White House, and there were a number of mothers of those girls who were appalled that their daughters wore flip-flops to the White House. The gist was that the mothers felt the daughters should have dressed more appropriately for the occassion (Meeting the President of the United States)
April 28th, 2006 23:44
Hijole, thanks for your comment! You bring up some interesting points.
First of all, your experience as a deacon, with boys making fun of you for wearing a corderoy jacket, illustrates very clearly why we should never make disparaging remarks about what someone wears to Church. I’m glad you weren’t driven into inactivity by what happened. (Or maybe you were, and have returned!)
Second, although you “don’t like to wear suits,” you indicate that you do think there are circumstances where a suit is appropriate to show respect–to your parents, a GA, or someone interviewing you for a job. And you say, “I may be dressing up for Church, but am I wearing my Sunday Best?” which I take to mean “following the general guidelines.”
You seem to see some conflicts in your thinking. You seem to believe that our manner of dress often does matter, and certain situations deserve our showing respect by the way we dress in more formal clothing. But, you really prefer to wear more comfortable clothing to church.
I don’t know if this would help you resolve your dilemma about what to wear on Sunday, but for me, this quote by Elder Holland gives some perspective:
May 1st, 2006 03:01
Interesting comments. I have had the opportunity of talking to a number of mission presidents over the years, and because of my curiosity about this subject, asked them if missionaries acted differently if they were in regular missionary attire, or in p-day clothes. To a man, they have said that missionaries were far more obedient, respectful, polite and trustworthy when wearing regular missionary attire.
It appears that how we dress does have some influence on our attitude.
May 1st, 2006 09:37
I think that the idea of “Sunday Best” is a bit convoluted and needs updating for today’s society. For example, my “best” clothes go this order: my prom dresses, a number of cocktail dresses, business skirt/pant suits, blouse & skirt/slacks sets. I would often end up wearing blouse & skirt/slacks; however, that’s not by definition my “best” clothes. But really, would anyone want me to be dressed in a cocktail dress or a prom dress? Those, really, aren’t appropriate for church even though they’re my “best” clothes.
Another issue is the pants vs. skirt debate that I’ve often heard from church members, especially from the slightly older generation. As a younger person (20s) who did not grow up in the church, I grew up understanding that slacks were just as appropriate as skirts for semi-formal occasions (and that is what I would classify church meetings as). However, since I’ve joined the church, I’ve had a number of older women (50s up) tell me that I should really only wear skirts or dresses to church, and not dress slacks. What are some of your ideas about this issue? Also, does anyone know of any specific guidance from the prophet or apostles?
May 1st, 2006 09:53
I’m sorry for double-posting, but I just realized I hadn’t finished my first idea about “Sunday Best”
As for today’s society, is church really a place where we all wear our “best” clothes? As I said above, our “best” clothes are often VERY formal, evening attire that would not be at all appropriate if worn to church. For example, men wear suits or shirt & tie to church. Suits are considered business professional dress, and Shirt & Tie are considered business casual dress. I’m sure some men own Tuxedos, yet that would be terribly inappropriate.
So if that’s the case, isn’t church more of a semi-formal place rather than a formal place? Because if it is indeed formal, we should be wearing our “black-tie attire.” (On a slight tangent, I would consider the temple a formal place, because the nature of it is more formal than your average sunday meeting). Anyhow, this is the reason why I think that “Sunday best” is an outdated term and idea of thinking, at least for modern society, there are many occasions outside of church that are considerably more formal.
Here’s another thought. Translating men’s dress (suits or shirt & ties) to women, I would say suits or blouse & pants/skirts would be the appropriate equivalent. In fact, many dresses that I see women wearing to my ward would not be considered business casual (as shirt & ties would be), but straight casual (for example, many floral print dresses, or t-shirt and skirt combos). So if that’s the case, should men be allowed to wear shirt & pants without ties? Or polos and khakis? What is indeed too formal for church? And what is too casual? Where does the line start, and where does the line stop?
May 1st, 2006 11:07
I know I’m a little late to this topic, but it reminds me of the saints in Korea when I was there on my mission. I used be wonder at the combination of clothes they would wear, especially the men. Then somebody pointed out to me that they were wearing their best: their best shirt, their best tie, best pants, best jacket, best shoes, etc. It didn’t matter whether the patterns or colors matched, what mattered was they were wearing their best.
May 1st, 2006 12:42
Beata, Thanks for your comments!
You have brought up an excellent point regarding the definition of the word “formal” in the context of church dress. I agree that American term “semi-formal”, as you define it, is probably better than the word “formal” to describe appropriate church dress, at least in the U.S. Although in some wards young women do come to church in their prom dresses the Sunday after the prom, tuxedos (and corresponding attire for women) are not usually considered appropriate for Sacrament Meeting.
But even “semi-formal” doesn’t always translate into what I think the Brethren are tring to express when they give the general guidlines such as Elder Holland spoke of (#54).
Since the point of my post was to try to bring out the reasons why many people in the U.S. tend to dress more casually now, we have been trying to stay away from too many specifics; so my answer to your question, “Where does the line start, and where does the line stop?” is to merely refer back to the general guidelines that current apostles and prophets talk about.
CS Eric, that was interesting to hear about Korea!
May 1st, 2006 16:16
Over on the FMH thread which inspired my post, two commenters referred to a CES fireside talk by Elder D. Todd Christoffersen to YSA’s “A Sense of the Sacred”,and I think the following quote is pertinent here:
May 3rd, 2006 12:44
My “nicest” clothes are evening gowns and a wedding dress.
My Sunday-go-to-meetin’ clothes are cotton skirts and matching flipflops, because my teenage daughter thinks they’re cool.
–The Editrix, who religiously wore stockings and designer foot-mangling high heels (even in tropical Hong Kong!) until the day she ran into a bare-legged Princess Diana on a formal state visit. Gasp! For about three seconds. Then the common sense kicked in, and I saw her point. It was the LAST time I wore pantyhose.
May 3rd, 2006 21:04
Editrix,
You have pointed out, as Beata did, that many in the U.S. and other relatively wealthy countries have clothing that is generally considered more “formal,” or “nicer” than what might be thought “appropriate” for Sunday meetings. And your observation of Princess Diana going bare-legged for a state visit is another instance of changing definitions of “formal.”
I find it most interesting that the reason you give for wearing cotton skirts and matching fip-flops to church on Sunday is that your teenage daughter thinks they’re “cool.”
July 16th, 2006 14:09
[…] I know for me I have not been as good with my personal prayers or my scripture reading. Can I improve on that? Some of the ways that we need to consider in evaluating our discipleship are in how we dress. A while ago on APoF,there was a thread on the trends in dress at church. It was a valuable discussion on our personal attitude in looking around at others, but dowe look at ourselves with the same critical eye? The issue is not what others are wearing but rather am I wearing the best I can because I can afford it and have access to the proper clothing. Means should not be the determining factor of how we dress but what the state of our heart is at the time. Are we dressing to appear greater than others around us? Ithink that would also qualify as not being in that right frame of discipleship. Does the clothing cover our garments sufficiently and is it not form fitting, or too tight. Do we push theline of modesty because we justify that garments are covered, when it may not be appropriate in how it fits? For men, do they fight the wearing of white shirts and ties, because they either think it is not cool, or that somehow they think the example and request to wear white is silly and dumb? I know that my son left for church today in a bad mood, hair uncombed, shirt dirty, white socks on, and grumbling that he didnthave time to fix it because he was to be at the church at 8am. My husband let him go because he was busy with two sick babies while I was getting ready. As soon as I heard this, I got in the van and went and picked my son up. I took him back home and I talked to him about who he is representing as a deacon, and he was not ready to minister in the ordinances with how he looked and the attitude he had as he left the house. I made him come home, comb his hair, change his socks, fix his shirt the best he could, and apologize to his dad about his attitude as he left the house. We both stressed the importance of acting and dressing the part he was playing and changing what was inside him. I think it was a great learning experience for all of us. No tempers were lost, it was done in love, and coincidently the Bishops message was on casual discipleship. […]
July 16th, 2006 19:55
#63, Thanks so much for these wise and thought-provoking comments, including the very relevant personal experience. Your statement,”Means should not be the determining factor of how we dress but what the state of our heart is at the time,” really gets to the main point.
For various reasons, we often slip into “casual discipleship” mode. What a great example you have shared in telling how you and your husband loveingly helped your son to understand “the importance of acting and dressing the part he was playing and changing what was inside him.”
July 16th, 2006 21:15
Wow! Good for you, #63.
July 17th, 2006 08:41
I have to say that was my post on We Seek after these things. I did not realize it sent the ping here. I had the link set up, but did not send the trackback. Interesting feature with wordpress.
July 17th, 2006 09:39
Tanya, Thanks for verifying who that perceptive person who wrote #63 is. I followed the link back to We Seek after These Things (great name for a blog), and thought I had it pegged to one of your pseudonyms, but wasn’t sure. No wonder I liked what you said so much–we are kindred spirits here on Roxcy.
July 17th, 2006 12:42
The only psuedonym I use out there is Tigersue. I’m getting used to using Tanya more, but I have a soft spot for my knickname that I can’t get rid of it entirely.