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!
4 comments:
Finally! Here I am, ready to rekindle the white flames. Thanks for bringing us back into the White, Rev. It was high time.
First, let me briefly address the issue of Spiderman vs. Batman. I can't argue very well that Spiderman is better than The Dark Knight, since I haven't seen the latter. My argument is a little different. I'm currently considering abondoning Spiderman all together, and anything else that portrays/glorifies/promotes Babylon. I've been reading "Approaching Zion" by Hugh Nibley, and it has really changed my way of thinking. He says things like, " When we try to mix Zion and Babylon, Babylon has already won the game." (p.19) Or "It is not even pure people in a dirty environment, or pure people with a few impure ones among them; it is the perfectly pure in a perfectly pure environment." (p. 26) He then says, "Zion is possible on the earth, that men possess the capacity to receive it right here and are therefore under obligation to waste no time moving in the direction of Zion. The instant one realizes that Zion is a possibility, one has no choice but to identify himself with the program that will bring about the quickest possible realization of its perfection. The call is to awake and arise, to "push many people to Zion with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads" (D&C 66:11). If undue haste is not desirable, delay is inexcusable; a sense of urgent gravity has ever marked the latter-day work: "I am Jesus Christ, who cometh quickly, in an hour you think not" (D&C 51:20). "Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly" (D&C 87:8).(p. 28)
As I've thought about these ideas, I've come to realize that I don't want anything more than to be close to God. I've been feeling an urgency about it, and don't want to waste time on things that a) detract from God, or b) may not necessarily detract from him, but do not bring me closer to him. Zion is possible here on the earth, it's happened before. I feel, with Nibley, that we need to be ready, and that the two cannot be mixed. Now I'm just repeating myself, but you get the idea. I'm considering abondoning the media, for the most part, with few exceptions. I'll still read the news, I'll still see good, clean films, and I'll still blog and email. But I want my recreation to be outdoors, or reading, or writing, or playing my cello. That's what I've been thinking about lately.
On to the new topic. BYU. Interesting ideas Rev. Thanks for sharing them. They are valid questions, and I see merit to both sides of the argument. First, after I read that post I decided to pray about the BYU Honor Code, being a BYU student and all. I did and received a confirmation of its truth. I felt as I prayed that it is in the Lord's will to have the honor code. Why? I suppose it has to do with the Church's image. We need to look professional, though I'm not sure that's exactly the right word. I'm going on a program-paid trip to D.C. next week and they've really stressed our appearance. I think this is because BYU students reflect BYU, and BYU reflects the Church, and the Church reflects the Savior. People, in our western culture, are more trustworthy when they are clean-shaven and well-dressed (two things that I've struggled with throughout my post-pubescent days). It's a cultural standard of professionalism that the Church has adopted. It helps our missionary efforts, and it helps our credibility.
Or maybe it's just to distinguish us from the FLDS. :)
Now, I don't think this standard needs to be held around the world. There was a branch president in Portugal with a pony-tail, and he was awesome. There are undoubtably great, spiritual giants who have great, spiritual beards. I think it is a Western standard that has infiltrated, to some degree, our global society, and thus, makes sense to have as a general church rule.
Regarding the Savior's appearance, I think that the dress and grooming standards of today will not be enforced after this life. It's certainly not doctrine, and that's the only permanent facet of the Church (as opposed to programs and policies, which can change). We'll probably all flaunt pony-tails and have braided beards in the Millenium, if we want to.
I guess the most important lesson is not to judge someone by their appearance. There are bad people who are clean-cut, and good people with beards and long hair. But I can still see the reason for the dress and grooming standard in our present society.
There. I'm done.
Congratulations matrimonial Light.
Congratulations law-bound Rev (I didn't know you'd taken the LSAT . . . considering how hard the GRE was, you have all my respect).
Thanks for the comments Fire. Rev is not yet "law bound". I simply just took the LSAT and am waiting for my score to see how I compete and where I get in. As of late, Reverence has been having some real tough personal decisions to make and Im not doing too well at it. I'm not positive what my strengths are, Im not sure what my interests exactly are etc etc etc. Thankfully, Im beginning to narrow some things down. It is a fun but stressful time. I'm indecisive by nature and its a bit of an obstacle. As of late, law has become significantly less interesting. I am still going to apply and do some research on the study of law and the practice of law but there are some real red flags that I've come across. The first is the stress, long hours, and other negative characteristics that seem directly linked with law school/practice. It sounds like White Mermaid's dad is happy, and Im sure there are some who are happy, but I'm nervous to embark on such a risky venture. Also, my LSAT-prep teacher opened up once during class and was expressing how law is totally a non-creative career and how all personal experience, incite, instinct, faith, opinion, ideas, etc are all discouraged and inapplicable in the study and practice of law. Only the law matters in law. Part of me likes this absolute truth-ishness, but I strongly doubt I can work in such a hostile environment. Anyway, enough me-talk.
As usual, Fire has purifying comments. I think approaching things in prayer is the correct way to receive direction and inspiration concerning any personal questions or problems. And, I would have to agree with Fire. The Honor Code's dressing standards are primarily oriented towards preserving a professional and conservative image for the church. This poses no problem to me. Standards in dress and groom are definitely not unique to our Church and they are definitely not unique to religious organization either. I have no personal problem complying with the Honor Code, so my interest in this debate is not too deep. I still would stand by the belief that it is curious that a Brigham-esque bearded man could attend the Temple, but not take a test at the Y. Also, I would still say that I am not extremely keen on the strict measurements that are given (i.e. lengths of mustaches and haircuts) instead of general guidelines like those that are found in the For The Strength of Youth pamphlet. Im more found of the "teach the people correct principles and let them govern themselves" approach. But, I understand that all sorts of interpretations and bending of rules could cause a lot of havoc for a University or Church and therefore a more clear definition of standards helps eliminate gray areas.
I think my raising of Honor Code questions could be classified as another manifestation of my consistent interest in discussion about relative and absolute truth. This discussion has been involved in most of our topics, and I think we'd all appreciate a shift away from it. But it is one of my greatest questions/concerns. I think this is due to an unsettled debate that was once had in my "Social Structures" class. Essentially, my professor argued that there is no such thing as absolute truth. That everything changes with time, that nothing will be the same. As Fire correctly pointed out, doctrine is eternal and absolute. Especially ones of great importance i.e. creation, fall, atonement, priesthood, prophets etc. So, anytime things seem to change or be relative but treated as absolute, I have a hard time. Examples of change include polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, and women's roles. Will open-gays be accepted one day? Women and the priesthood? Now, so I am not misunderstood, my testimony does not weigh in the balance on these issues. I don't think about them often either. But, as is proven by my consistent return to the matter, when in "white table mode" one of my great interests is this debate. So I'd like to hear more about it. Anyway, sorry, long post. I'm done. Bye.
Hi boys. Jacob here. Don't count on me too often, though. Anyway, Spence, I didn't read all of your post, but, I wanted to add that I know a Navajo bishop that has a long black ponytail. I'm not saying that it's right or not, but it exists... once. Herbivore. Herby Kirby Burby. Suburban.
Here's a thought from Hugh Nibley on the subject: "The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism. Longhairs, beards, necklaces, LSD and rock, Big Sur and Woodstock come and go, but Babylon is always there: rich, respectable, immovable, with its granite walls and steel vaults, its bronze gates, its onyx trimmings and marble floors (all borrowed from ancient temples, for these are our modern temples), and its bullet-proof glass--the awesome symbols of total security."
Interesting, eh?
Post a Comment