tesseract
Is he really saying that sloppy people can’t be disciples of Christ or are less so?. He should probably talk to Jesus because I’m pretty sure he hung out with the poor and the afflicted, and, in general, the type of people who DID NOT iron their money.

I asked a similar question last March. Women in the church can be “disciples” if they are fat, but they are rarely seen as leaders at the general level.

And while the men might well be fat and/or bald, they aren’t sloppy.

I don’t have any actual photo footage of Christ handy, but I’m guessing that he’s not obese and his pants aren’t riding down below his boxers.

So how much does appearance matter?

The “awesome” part in the original talk has “…in every paragraph” at the end. So the point was that awesomeness while true is more than likely not so in every instance of the word’s potential for insertion in a sentance. Does everything stike awe into every person everytime? And should it? God may be awesome but cancer is not so awesome when it’s happening, neither is being jailed and having God tell you it’s for your experience and dare I say, refinement.

I see numerous women of all ages each week in church who I would call beautiful or pretty whom would not qualify as a checkout-stand magazine cover models. The small amount of refinement I may posess allows me to not define or evaluate each woman by the passing standard of the day. I know Kaimi’s wife, and my wife and both are beautiful but they are not alike in looks in many ways; blond/brunette, blue eyes/brown, tall/average height, freckled/clear skin, etc… and yet we each love the looks of our respective wives and can appreciate the radiant beauty the other posesses. Their talents and accomplishments encircle and infuse the beauty I see. The shallow soul is content with “arm candy” while the refined soul appreciates all that a person is.

Elder Callister seemed to be trying to teach us that a “refined” celestial view would quickly drop what Elder Holland referenced as the “great and spacious make up kit” and stop using it as the yardstick by which all people are measured. We would pick up a celestial view and seek to live thereby.

As we drop the worldly standard of all women and men looking like some Hitler invoked super race, of all one size and style we realize that true refinement sees the grand diversity of our Heavenly Father’s creations.

The fashion of the day is no better than the slovenly look. The refined soul would shun both on that principle. Neither look is welcoming nor comforting regardless of the percieved comfortable feelings one may get in either scene. Being at one’s best in appearnace and talents requires conscious effort and understanding of one’s self and mastery over self.

The references to looking one’s best were meant for both sexes to be considerate of each other and to keep themselves “neat and comely” like the Nephites of old.

#6 commenter above said the original talk said something about a ballet being better than sporting events. However, that is once again an example of hearing or reading by a personal bias or not fully listening ;-). The story was of an athlete who was pursuing a refined young woman who spoke french and played violin. He had never attended a cultural event and a group of them all went to the visiting American ballet troupe preformance. He was so riveted by the performance and how closely he saw that refined talent and this young woman that he told elder Callister that this was how he wanted his home to be once he was married. There was no judgement or comparison of the merits of a sporting event vs. the ballet.

The reference to Oscar Wilde was what he had one of his characters say. It’s too bad that his obsession with the aesthetic and flamboyant gave him the idea that pure self indulgence and abdication of obligations to family and children led him where it does all who so live, down a dead end road of sadness and defeat.

When we are taken aback by the words of others re-read them, check the original then see if the same knee hits our chin.

So, how far out do we want to take this?

“If they’re too pretty, then perhaps they’re walking porn for men. They need to somehow be very modest and at the same time beautiful.” That reminds me of the Calvin Grondahl cartoon, where a woman is posing for a statue, like the ones around the Church Office Building, standing in a long dress, hold a spoon at her side, and the sculptor is saying; “No! Your pose is still too sexual!”

Now, ironing dollar bills might seem tidy to some, but to others it does seem too OCD. Since the person mentioned is long since dead, it can be hard to clarify why it was done.

The music comments here remind me of the Calvin Grondahl cartoon, where as an introduction to a musical piece about to be performed at a Sacrament Meeting, the performer said:”Today, I will be performing something considered spiritually radical in the seventeenth century, but now acceptable in the twentieth century”.

I think the overuse of the word “awesome” will die down over the years, so I don’t seat it. Cliches come and go. Remember “Groovy”? “Far out”? “Swell”? “Keen”? I am amazed how black & white the world seems to some Mission Presidents, though.

(As to ‘awesome’ — I think there is a refined way to use that word, and a pop-culture-like way to use it. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of reason to say that we ought to try to remove the use of lazy or pop-culturey language.)

What constitutes “lazy” or “pop culturey” language? I’m really curious about that point. How do we recognize it? Is it just what we don’t like because we don’t find it cultured enough? I have to make observation that even if we removed it, something else will only take its place and function.

The comment reminds me of an elders’ quorum lesson I once sat in where the EQ pres took us all to task for using phrases like “oh my goodness” because (a) they were clearly just substitutes for things we shouldn’t say and (b) we wouldn’t hear the Savior say such things. Really? And how do we know? Because we don’t see it in the Bible?

When we read the KJV Bible we get a very distorted view of Jesus’ own language, which was very pithy and earthy, not measured and lofty. While we can admire the poetry of the KJV, to use it as representative of Jesus’ voice (rather than a particularly old-fashioned and lofty-toned creation of men), is a mistake. Jesus’ own language as we have it recorded in the Greek Bible wouldn’t meet Callister’s ideals, so on the one point where I think he’s verifiable, he doesn’t get passing marks.

Would it help if I said “upper-class Wasatch Front society writ large”? My point was that there is a real tendency to at least tacitly believe that the Celestial Kingdom is going to be culturally Mormon somehow, something I just don’t buy at all.

Callister, at least for me, is arguing for the perfection of Wasatch Front society by purging it of such déclassé elements as monster truck shows, rock concerts, Chuck-E-Cheese, bangs to heaven, bad makeup, goatees, blue jeans, shirts without ties, etc. (OK, I’m exaggerating a little now.) He isn’t arguing for its replacement with something else or even its particular enrichment with elements that aren’t already there. It’s more the cry that if only we spent more time in the concert hall watching people in tutus dance and less at the cinema, we’d be better people. That may be true, but I’m not convinced that the concert hall is the only place we can draw inspiration.

I’d like to share a link that is the antithesis of Callister’s talk, a full-throated defense of vulgarity (use in the proper sense): In Praise of Vulgarity: How commercial culture liberates Islam — and the West. I don’t agree with all of the article, but it raises some interesting points that are relevant as a response to Callister’s talk.

Just my two cents, probably wrong…

“Do you wear, or do you sympathize with those who wear, pajamas in public places?”

Amen.

Well, yeah. That’s what I meant when I wrote: “I hate this whole theme in the church that men of heirarchy have a better understanding of God than those of us at the low end, and can tell us who God is.” I thought I was clear when I wrote my comment that I have encountered this theme many times, outside of this article.

Quoting from #38: “Sorry you were so offended.”

Well, that’s okay. It’s not your fault.