The White Table is looking quite dark lately. Nobody to purify, enlighten, or cleanse it. Happy engagement to Light! And happy BYU to Fire! Happy LSAT-is-done for Reverence! It seems we are all quite busy. Or, maybe the last post was dragging on and we need a new topic. I think a bit of both. I want to present a new post. It is a silly one, and one which will spark some debate, but I don't think it will last too long because I think the right-wrong in it is more apparent than the eternal debate concerning The Dark Knight. Speaking of the DK, I have concretized my opinion that it is a valid, and moral movie worth viewing. Last night on TV was Spider Man 2, and Jodie and I watched most of it. I will always love SpiderMan, but I firmly disagree that it is in anyway a better film than the DK, on any grounds; morally, cinematically, thematically. There are plenty of questionable parts, but the one thing I can say about it, is that the "goodness" of Spiderman is much more apparent than The DK. Especially in the script, such as when Aunt Mae and Peter discuss how "sometimes, to do what is right, you much forgo what you want, even your dreams." This is clearly in line with the gospel. I also do enjoy how clear the sacrifice in behalf of others is made by Spider Man. But The DK has equal goodness and maybe even more layers too it. Plus, I don't know why Peter and MJ don't get together! He could love her as Peter Parker, and fight crime as Spider Man. Peter's relationship with Aunt Mae never jeopardized her. Clearly a writing flaw in Spider Man 2. Anyway, just a few quick thoughts. Some response is welcome, even though I'm creating a new post.
So a debate broke out at the Staples house recently. It was me versus my mom, at first. Slowly everyone ganged up on me and it became me against the world. The reason for such a lop-sided debate is due to the topic of debate. I chose a hard argument to defend, and became the only one who would do so. The topic was the BYU honor code. My mom, and eventually everyone, defended the honor code, while I argued decidedly against it. Again, part of me was playing the devil's advocate, and defending a point to which I do not fully subscribe, but I think its healthy to consider opposing opinions. It was a fun and lengthy debate. Here are the main points, and I present it to the table for more Light, Fire and Reverence.
For:
- The Honor Code is established by the brethren, therefore is to be non-negotiably accepted.
- The Honor Code helps provide a safe-haven from distractions that impede from the main goal of a University....education.
- The Honor Code draws a line against which people can measure themselves, and gives clear goals and standards.
- The Honor Code is not a Church Code, and is unique to the school. So it is not to be looked at as a "worthiness interview."
Against:
- The imposed enforcement of the Honor Code restricts agency
- Certain elements of the Honor Code are counterintuitive, specifically the dress and grooming standards, because one could attend the temple with a certain haircut but cannot take a test on campus.
- The Honor Code has changed overtime, which raises questions of "absolute truth" within the Honor Code. At one point women could NOT wear jeans. Also, sandals could only be worn with socks (creating the uniquely Utah/Mormon style)
- Mustaches are allowed, for some reason, which just seems silly, and beards are not. Why cant Brigham Young (and 6 other prophets) go to Brigham Young? Mustache-wearing fools, however, would have no problem getting into the testing center, such as Hitler, Saddam, Charlie Chaplin, Tom Selick, Freddie Mercury. Funny to think about.
I definitely don't believe the Honor Code is a bad thing. I agree with every rule and admonishment, with exception to the dress and grooming standards. But I wonder about the restriction of agency in some cases.
My mom really got me going at one point. I wasn't mad, but strongly disagreed. She argued that "its true that a man with a pony-tail or beard can attend the temple, but you also know that he is not a bishop or stake president." Im not sure if I would go as far as to say that Bishops and Stake Presidents should be able to have pony-tails, but I did not like the comment as I saw it as an unfair judgment. Maybe the pony-tailed or bearded-man has been a bishop in the past, or will be in the future. Grooming, to me, has little to do with worthiness. It also seems weird to project these standards into other countries as the church grows. For example, my mission did not have stakes yet established. And if I understand correctly, the grooming standards are not yet fully enforced at the district/branch level, since many leaders in the West Indies sport mustaches and beards. The branch president in one area had a large, full beard. He was great. If the district becomes a stake, he will have to shave. Why!?! That seems silly. I am not totally sure of this as a rule, however, so I may be mistaken of that enforcement. Also, black-skinned people often have a MUCH more difficult time keeping a clean shave, because curly hairs are more prone to become in-grown. Thus we see more black people with facial hair than white people. That a bishop or stake-president must be clean-shaven could potentially be unfair to the black people in this regard. I believe it was Gene R. Cook who said that the first sign of an apostate is facial hair. Wow.
The debate stretched further and we discussed the concept of dressing standards within the church. Generally, leaders, priesthood holders and all other men are encouraged to wear white shirts and ties to church. It is argued that the white is symbolic of purity and cleanliness. This makes some sense, especially when we think of the temple. But, white shirts and ties as formal attire is strictly western in nature. African people look to color as symbols of power and authority. Should local leaders in Africa be able to determine their own, culturally-sensitive, type of attire for Sunday? Hmmm. Not sure. I'd like to gain some Light and feel some Fire on the subject. The discussion of white shirts and ties may be a moot point because pretty-much all of the West Indian and African members that I came into contact with were proud to own a white shirt, and wore it with pride. But, I'm not sure about true-africa.
Okay, let the White Table be cleansed. It is dark and dreary as of late. Hopefully this will get us rolling again. Onward!
