Wash, rinse, repent

I've been listening to October 08 Conference tapes during my commute lately. Elements of Elder Christofferson's talk "Come to Zion" resonate with me in a way that few recent addresses have, but more on that in a future post. For now, I want to nitpick a line that jumped out at me as I listened this afternoon, from the Priesthood Session: "True servants of Jesus Christ are properly groomed."

Statements like this make it difficult for me to process and ponder the messages that surround them, largely because my mind gets stuck in this groove on the record (and I know that the prophets of old saw our minds getting stuck in sundry progress-hindering grooves), "Wait, did he really just say that? And is that what me really meant, or did he mean something else but that was just the most succinct way of encapsulating the broader idea?"

Not sure where to begin on this (and I'll skip the "How are two earrings bad but one is OK? / What if you're from a tribal culture where piercings are the norm and the absence thereof is the sign of deviancy, rebellion and dangerously individualistic expression?" > "It's not about earrings, it's about obedience." > "Obedience to which eternal principle?" > "You're body's a temple." > "Agreed. Then why is even one piercing OK?" side discussion) so I'll just throw out some bullets, in no particular order, and eventually arrive at my point, maybe:

- To consider the application of this “principle” at its most practical level, does the frequency of one’s hair-washings or the potency of one’s B.O. have anything to do with one’s degree of devotion? If anything, didn’t Isaiah and Lehi warn against too much grooming, not inadequate grooming? What's the One True Standard of Personal Hygiene to which we should aspire? Socially-acceptable grooming practices vary widely even among industrialized nations (not to mention many Third-World countries where the Church is thriving), so is it the standard Procter & Gamble and Monk would like us to see us embrace, or is this universal truth subject to local interpretation? And would John the Baptist be up-to-sniff?

- If The White Shirt "is simply a symbol of purity," then what do charcoal gray or navy suits symbolize? (More on that well-worn vestment here.)

- There's the "There should be nothing about [your] personal appearance that would distract" argument, which seems like a reasonable point, until, assuming “to distract” means to “stick out,” one takes a closer look at the basis by which distraction is measured. Virtually everything we wear is the product of fashion design filtered and disseminated via various marketing mechanisms. So are we to attire ourselves in the most moderate common denominator of whatever our given culture offers, after the marketing process has played itself out in establishing what’s pinko radical, what’s weirdo puritanical, and what’s We’re-Peculiar-But-Not-SO-Peculiar-As-To-Alienate-Prospects vanilla? This seems to be the case and vanilla’s the winner (that is, Western corporate culture vanilla), which means that this truth is, at its source, being defined by Hugo Boss & Friends. Which makes perfect sense, especially for Deacons passing the sacrament in Uganda or home teachers making the rounds in Sri Lanka.

- I broached this topic with my wife earlier today. She asked the very reasonable question, “How do you think a disciple of Christ should groom or dress?” I said, “In a way that doesn’t provoke immoral thought. Beyond that, nothing else matters.” I’d add that, when the situation is appropriate, one should dress in the way that his or her culture associates with respect. In Chicago, this may very well mean a suit. (Although, as my bishop mentioned, “If I’m wearing a $7 grand Brioni to Sacrament Meeting, there’s a problem,” to which I’d add, “If you own a $7 grand Brioni, there’s a problem.”) But it will mean something very different in Kingstown, Accra and Quito – so why does the Church promulgate the idea of purity inherent to The White Shirt and the clean shave? My wife also asked, “Why are you making such a big deal out of this? It’s little, it’s nothing. You’ve got more important things to work out.” (For the record, I conform to Church Grooming & Dress Standards at least 99.6% of the time.) Given that we in the Church certainly know that little things can mean a lot (see Alma 37:6-7), it’s hard for me to view this small matter in isolation. And it’s hard for me to reconcile it to anything other than the lasting influence on Church patriarchy of IBM and Hippies, each a model of controllable and uncontrollable behavior, respectively, manifest through its own “uniform” – which, incidentally, IBM eventually gave up on.

I can’t believe I just blew 45 minutes on this.