More on white shirts and "the unwritten order of things
 

Our stake president gave a talk in stake general priesthood meeting about the "unwritten order of things," which is the title of a talk Elder Packer gave in 1996. The idea is that there are certain things that are simply done in the Church, but which are not written down anywhere. I can see what Elder Packer is saying, but personally, that type of thinking makes me a little nervous. That's a subject for another time.

The president said that one unwritten rule was that when we are functioning in a priesthood callnig we should wear white shirts. He didn't say we had to (except when passing the sacrament), but he said it was just something you do. For adults, so is wearing a suit jacket, blazer, or sport coat, or the equivalent.

I sighed (inwardly) and obeyed. At that time I was a high councilor, so anytime I was at church I was functioning in a priesthood capacity, I guess. So I always wore a white shirt. Those were the only times I wore white shirts (except when going to the temple) because I really prefer colors and stripes. Nothing loud, nothing offensive, just not white. Since then I've been a Young Men president and during that time I wore a white shirt to church, but certainly not to Mutual. (I even got the OK from my bishop to wear non-white shirts to Mutual.) Now I'm in the bishopric. I am sure that many members of my ward do not think I even own anything but white shirts.

I think this is a little over-done, and my stake president has now taken every example from Elder Packer's talk and made it into a strong suggestion, which means it is practically a rule. But I've decided to be philosophical. It's like long hair in my youth: It is not going to kill me to have shorter har or wear a white shirt, and once the "suggestion" has been made by a priesthood leader I don't want to create conflict by defying that.

The problem that I have with "The Unwritten Order of Things" is that it can be taken too far. There are a lot of things that we do in the church because that's the way we've always done them. That doesn't mean that it is the only way to do something or that it is necessarily the best or right way to do something.

I just wish that if it was something important the Brethren could announce it and I'll do it. No, I don't need to be commanded in all things. But I'd appreciate a heads up on matters that seem absolutely insignificant to me. Bottom line for me is who is doing the strong suggesting. It's one thing if it's Elder Packer. It's quite another if it is just another ward leader seemingly inventing a new rule.

I'm the ward exec. secretary. I have a ragged goatee, I get my hair cut every 3 months, and I wear colored shirts, and I almost never wear a suit coat/sportsjacket (esp. in the summer).

Nobody has said anything to me directly. Certainly many members have probably wondered why I have my calling. :)

LA Ute takes a practical approach to things no doubt
 

and his approach is the safe route.

What bothers me about it might be understood by Brigham Young's blue ribbon speech. BY once stated that he could direct women to wear a blue ribbon in their hair, and it would be the obligation of members to do it.

I understand the concept of humility, as might be seen in the life of Oliver Cowdery. It just smacks of a lack of common sense to make much to do about a minor matter from both sides.

Focus on the meet and potatoes, not the garnishments.

Yes white shirts look nice, but I must wear them often at work. I don't feel special wearing them to Church. I feel special wearing temple clothing because I don't dress that way often. If I dress comfortably so that I can worship, that seems more important than finding another white shirt which isn't special to me.

Plus in our neck of the woods, it's darn hot here and wearing a jacket is a burden in the summer. Why is respect only shown in dressing uncomfortably? In the temple, I'm comfortable. Wearing a stiff white shirt with a jacket on a miserably hot day, I'm not comfortable. Should we make the experience miseable?