Dress suits/Mormon culture

[SMP]

Marduk edit: Question 62584, for reference.

The expectation for women to wear dresses to church is absolutely cultural, and not doctrinal. Sure, we can find doctrinal-sounding explanations, but we are really just kidding ourselves. There is nothing doctrinally wrong with a woman wearing a dress suit to church.

There are other examples where Mormons try to explain cultural practices as doctrine.

If a member were to come to church wearing a cross on a necklace, I'm sure some other members would find that objectionable. But there is not fundamentally anything wrong with it. Our aversion to the cross as a symbol is cultural more than anything. But there are doctrinal reason that might explain why we have such a cultural diversion, i.e. we focus more on the resurrection than the crucifixion, etc. However, the tendency to associate the cross with catholicism is probably a more important explanation for our cultural aversion.

I can think of a few other examples: wearing a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament, the restriction on instruments in sacrament meeting, taking the sacrament with the right hand,..

Back to dress suits. Although men are expected to dress like they would in a business situation, for someone reason it is inappropriate for women to do the same. Perhaps this is related to our cultural disdain for working women. Or maybe such dress conveys a sense of authority, which creates dissonance in the staunchly patriarchal structure of the church.

I dunno, those are just some of my thoughts. I guess what I am saying is that I would tell an investigator that if she wants to wear a dress suit, go right ahead. And I would be more than willing to argue with anyone who gave her trouble for it.

[NerdGirl]

Agreed. Plus, this:
"The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women's or
girls' dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or
other types of clothing. We have always counseled our members to be
modest in their dress, maintaining such standards in connection
therewith as would not be embarrassing to themselves and to their
relatives, friends, and associates.

"We have advised our people that when going to the temple they should
not wear slacks or miniskirts, or otherwise dress immodestly. We have
not, however, felt it wise or necessary to give instructions on this
subject relative to attendance at our Church meetings, although we do
feel that on such occasions they should have in mind that they are in
the house of the Lord and should conduct themselves accordingly."
(Priesthood Bulletin, June 1971.)

From here: http://lds.org/new-era/1974/12/qa-quest ... s?lang=eng

Also this:
"Sister Cannon: The ratio of nursery leaders to children should be about one-to-eight—and, incidentally, we’re suggesting that these women wear pantsuits so that they can participate more comfortably with the children! As each child comes, a leader greets him, puts a name tag on him, and gives him a book or puzzle—something he can do quietly while the children are assembling."

From here: http://lds.org/ensign/1978/06/accept-fu ... y?lang=eng

[Quiet Lamb]

Do you think the reader was referring to suit sets in general or purely to suits with pants? In my mission we had to wear a suit coat with our skirts if we were not wearing an actual dress to meetings, to present our best self to ward council. As to wearing pants to church, especially with investigators and less-actives that we were trying to get to church, we honestly couldn't have cared less as long as they were there. As far as active members are concerned, I think it would be kind of uncomfortable being the only woman wearing pants week after week, and on the other side of the spectrum, I don't think sister missionaries will ever be allowed to wear pant suits. Take what you will from that.

[Katya]

As far as active members are concerned, I think it would be kind of uncomfortable being the only woman wearing pants week after week . . .

Is that a good reason not to do it, though?

[wired]

As far as active members are concerned, I think it would be kind of uncomfortable being the only woman wearing pants week after week . . .

Is that a good reason not to do it, though?

I'll say that's a good reason. If there's a black-tie affair, you go in a tux. If you don't go in a tux, you'll be out of place considering the nature of the event. If you're golfing with friends, there's a wide range of clothing you can wear; if you go golfing as a business meeting, you were khakis and a polo. Otherwise, you'll look like you are trying to be too buddy-buddy.

I think the local culture may dictate what a person ought to wear to church. Do I think anyone should condemn that person for not dressing like them or even think twice about it? No. But I think dressing like everyone else does is good manners. If there are mitigating circumstances - finances for example - then obviously I think that affects the decision. But if it's a matter of personal preference, then I'd say go with the status quo.

(For some reason, there's a lot of hostility toward conformity, even when conformity has benefits in and of itself. A narrower range of dress allows people to focus more on the event, has the benefit of sending a signal about the nature of the event, etc.)

[Katya]

Conformity makes some people actively, acutely miserable. For obvious reasons, these people tend to have a hard time within Mormon culture, and they're often called to repentance by people who are happier to conform to the culture, and who mistake that conformity for the gospel. If an extreme hairstyle or a beard or wearing pants to church makes such people a bit less miserable at church (and more likely to participate in activities which are more foundational to our doctrine and/or activities which build their faith and speak peace to their souls), I take no issue with it.

[wired]

Conformity makes some people actively, acutely miserable. For obvious reasons, these people tend to have a hard time within Mormon culture, and they're often called to repentance by people who are happier to conform to the culture, and who mistake that conformity for the gospel. If an extreme hairstyle or a beard or wearing pants to church makes such people a bit less miserable at church (and more likely to participate in activities which are more foundational to our doctrine and/or activities which build their faith and speak peace to their souls), I take no issue with it.

I think this is an instance where my own personality is holding me back from understanding the other side. Can someone help me understand why conformity itself - as opposed to the actual action they are taking - makes them miserable?

Edit: To reveal a little more light on what I mean, I don't get why just the fact that one is conforming to something would make them miserable. I can understand if dresses make you miserable. But being miserable not because of your distaste for dresses, but because of your distaste for conforming seems internally incoherent. That mind set is almost identical to mindlessly following the crowd - mindlessly rebelling against the crowd.

[thebigcheese]

My husband has been sporting a beard for a few months now, and I always feel a little weird about that when we're at church. Not because it's bad to wear a beard, per se, but more because we attend a BYU student ward (even though we've both been done for a year). Sometimes I kinda feel like we're rubbing it in their faces a little bit. "We've graduated, SUCKERS!"

But it's really not a big deal, and nobody's actually said anything about it. And I think it's funny when my husband refers to his beard as his "diploma".

[Katya]

Conformity makes some people actively, acutely miserable. For obvious reasons, these people tend to have a hard time within Mormon culture, and they're often called to repentance by people who are happier to conform to the culture, and who mistake that conformity for the gospel. If an extreme hairstyle or a beard or wearing pants to church makes such people a bit less miserable at church (and more likely to participate in activities which are more foundational to our doctrine and/or activities which build their faith and speak peace to their souls), I take no issue with it.

I think this is an instance where my own personality is holding me back from understanding the other side. Can someone help me understand why conformity itself - as opposed to the actual action they are taking - makes them miserable?

Edit: To reveal a little more light on what I mean, I don't get why just the fact that one is conforming to something would make them miserable. I can understand if dresses make you miserable. But being miserable not because of your distaste for dresses, but because of your distaste for conforming seems internally incoherent. That mind set is almost identical to mindlessly following the crowd - mindlessly rebelling against the crowd.

Truthfully, I'm not someone who likes to stand out either, so I can't speak from personal experience or understanding. Would you like me to ask my friends who feel that way why they do?

[wired]

Conformity makes some people actively, acutely miserable. For obvious reasons, these people tend to have a hard time within Mormon culture, and they're often called to repentance by people who are happier to conform to the culture, and who mistake that conformity for the gospel. If an extreme hairstyle or a beard or wearing pants to church makes such people a bit less miserable at church (and more likely to participate in activities which are more foundational to our doctrine and/or activities which build their faith and speak peace to their souls), I take no issue with it.

I think this is an instance where my own personality is holding me back from understanding the other side. Can someone help me understand why conformity itself - as opposed to the actual action they are taking - makes them miserable?

Edit: To reveal a little more light on what I mean, I don't get why just the fact that one is conforming to something would make them miserable. I can understand if dresses make you miserable. But being miserable not because of your distaste for dresses, but because of your distaste for conforming seems internally incoherent. That mind set is almost identical to mindlessly following the crowd - mindlessly rebelling against the crowd.

Truthfully, I'm not someone who likes to stand out either, so I can't speak from personal experience or understanding. Would you like me to ask my friends who feel that way why they do?

Yeah I'll take anything I can get.

Mindless-conformity or hating conformity in all situations both seem unreasoned to me so I am having a hard time seeing why people would prefer the latter to the former. I think the better option is to assess the merits of conforming in an individual situation. For instance, here conformity has a value to it. Conformity to pick a particular style of dress at school (where no signal needs to be sent about the nature of the event) would be an instance where I think it is less useful.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I think the local culture may dictate what a person ought to wear to church. Do I think anyone should condemn that person for not dressing like them or even think twice about it? No. But I think dressing like everyone else does is good manners. If there are mitigating circumstances - finances for example - then obviously I think that affects the decision. But if it's a matter of personal preference, then I'd say go with the status quo.

But aren't there lots of instances as Latter Day Saints where we're counseled not to follow the trends of the world in our dress? I know a lot of LDS women are uncomfortable wearing a two-piece bikini to the beach, or wearing mainstream gowns to prom, etc. I only bring this up because the idea that a skirt or dress is the proper feminine way to dress up is rooted in worldly standards of clothing—not gospel ones.

[wired]

I think the local culture may dictate what a person ought to wear to church. Do I think anyone should condemn that person for not dressing like them or even think twice about it? No. But I think dressing like everyone else does is good manners. If there are mitigating circumstances - finances for example - then obviously I think that affects the decision. But if it's a matter of personal preference, then I'd say go with the status quo.

But aren't there lots of instances as Latter Day Saints where we're counseled not to follow the trends of the world in our dress? I know a lot of LDS women are uncomfortable wearing a two-piece bikini to the beach, or wearing mainstream gowns to prom, etc. I only bring this up because the idea that a skirt or dress is the proper feminine way to dress up is rooted in worldly standards of clothing—not gospel ones.

I think you're right on and I think my following posts give a more nuanced representation of my views. Look at the benefits of conformity (including its effects on others) weighed against the costs (personal and effect-related) and determine if conformity is beneficial. For me, if I were a girl, the modesty issues you bring up would factor in significantly. Compare that with the pant suit situation which would be a matter of my own personal preference for a comfortable pant suit over a dress that would have to be balanced with conforming in order to send a signal about the nature of Church attendance.

Everything I am saying is on a personal level by the way. When people come to church in jeans, my conditioned response is, "I'm glad they're here at church." (Shortly after my mission, I began to realize the need to have feelings that reflect the inclusive purpose of the gospel as opposed to my own gut/natural-man reaction of evaluating something I deemed abnormal given the circumstances. I just beat that phrase in to my head whenever I began to think about what someone else was wearing. Hence the conditioned response.)

[thebigcheese]

Just throwing this out there, in regard to cultural trends:

[Craig Jessop]

They're not missionaries. No name tags. (...)

[wired]

Just throwing this out there, in regard to cultural trends:

To be honest, this is precisely what I was thinking of. Lava-lavas would very appropriate to wear in predominately polynesian wards, but would probably be more distracting in a Spanish branch.

[Katya]

To be honest, this is precisely what I was thinking of. Lava-lavas would very appropriate to wear in predominately polynesian wards, but would probably be more distracting in a Spanish branch.

You know what would be even more distracting? Babies. Or any children. We should discourage them from coming to church, too.

[Dragon Lady]

To be honest, this is precisely what I was thinking of. Lava-lavas would very appropriate to wear in predominately polynesian wards, but would probably be more distracting in a Spanish branch.

You know what would be even more distracting? Babies. Or any children. We should discourage them from coming to church, too.

Does that mean I wouldn't be in charge of Primary anymore? I can't decide if I support or oppose this.

[wired]

To be honest, this is precisely what I was thinking of. Lava-lavas would very appropriate to wear in predominately polynesian wards, but would probably be more distracting in a Spanish branch.

You know what would be even more distracting? Babies. Or any children. We should discourage them from coming to church, too.

See cost-benefit analysis above. Babies = ultimate benefit.

[wired]

I'm not saying to exclude either (moms with babies or lava lavas). I am saying that when it comes time to make a decision, an individual ought to make the decision of whether to conform using the cost benefit analysis. Cultural norms will affect that analysis because going outside of them in certain situations will necessarily impose a cost. So there is a decision of wheher to impose the cost; in the baby situation, the alternative decision is to not attend church. In the clothing situations, it is wearing some alternative clothing. Those also have very different costs and benefits.

[wired]

It appears I am arguing with a ghost.