Hoops, Again | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 16, 1866

Hoops, Again.

OUR suggestion on hoops in Review No. 16, present volume, is creating something of a stir in quite an unexpected direction. We endeavored to make a suggestion which would commend itself to the sober judgment of all concerned, being at the time well aware that the question was a very sensitive one. Whatever opposition the article did meet, we expected would come from those who, in defiance of the Testimonies, and in opposition to the declared principles of this people, have adopted hoops and are boldly wearing them. As it is, we find the opposition coming, so far as we have learned, from just the opposite direction; that is, from those who have discarded hoops, and are most strenuously opposed to them.

Now, we are rejoiced to hear of any who are endeavoring with singleness of purpose, to walk in the light given to this people through vision, or who are endeavoring to live out the resolutions on dress recommended at our last General Conference; and wherein they think that the suggestion in No. 16, is contrary to the visions or the resolutions on dress, by all means let them not follow it. All adherence to such authorities, over any individual opinion, we shall certainly respect and honor. But we think the idea that there is any contradiction between them, arises from a misunderstanding of the article in question.

For instance, one sister in Tuscola Co., Mich., regrets the appearance of the article just at the time when the resolutions on dress were being adopted by them. But it is a fact that the article and the resolution on dress touching the question of hoops, are from the same pen; and the author of both, holding the same views still, is not yet able to perceive any discrepancy between them.

Again, all who object to the article, appeal for their first proof to the visions. Well, we have lately written a series of articles in defence of the visions, and have had our own faith in their authenticity greatly strengthened by the investigation, and we are the last one to come out now and knowingly recommend anything that is contrary to their teaching.

We hold that the wearing of hoops, skeleton skirts, or whatever they are called, however small, is a direct violation of the Testimonies; and this point we expressly stated in the article in question. We hold that the wearing of hoops, however small, is also a direct violation of the resolutions on dress; and this point too, we took care distinctly to state in the article. So far, then, we are on common ground; and on these points we are as strong as any one can be. The real question then between us is, What constitutes hoops? The resolution on dress says, “Anything by which from its size or the nature of the material, the form of the wearer is liable to be immodestly exposed.” The Testimonies say essentially the same thing; for it is on the ground of exposure that hoops are condemned by them, Ex. xx, 26, being the text to which Sr. W. was referred in the matter. We took the ground that a few steel springs, four at most, of suitable dimensions, inserted in a skirt, just as cords are inserted, would not render a person liable to the exposures referred to, and hence would not be hoops under the intent of the Testimonies, and the resolutions on dress. We gave our reasons for this position; but not one of these reasons has been answered or shown to be unsound; and yet the article is assailed as though it was a departure from the positions this people have taken, and a recommendation for the adoption of hoops. If this is so, it must be singularly self-contradictory; for it is expressly claimed in the article that the wearing of hoops is contrary to the principles of this people, to the Testimonies, and to the resolutions on dress.

Let us state again the difference between what we recommended, and hoops. Hoops, when they meet an obstacle in front, will fly up behind. A skirt with three or four springs inserted, as suggested, will not so operate. Hoops, in passing through a narrow place, will elevate the dress to an immodest degree. The skirt we suggest will not so do. With a skeleton, the dress is liable to be held up by being caught between the springs. With a skirt, this cannot occur.

Hoops possess such a degree of stiffness, that the utmost care is required to keep within the bounds of modesty. The skirt requires no such caution. We say therefore, that it is not hoops, and can be in no respect contrary to the Testimonies or the resolutions on dress.

Now no one objects to cords in a skirt. But springs inserted in the same manner, limited to the number suggested, have the same effect, and in looks and operation, cannot be distinguished from them. Then where is the difference? Can we consistently take the position that hemp is so much more sacred in the eyes of God than steel, that the former can be allowed, but the latter must be excluded, in accomplishing precisely the same results?

But says one, “My conscience will not allow me to put springs in a skirt.” Very well, nobody is trying to compel, or even asks, you to do it. Continue the course your conscience dictates, and no one will have any feeling over it whatever. It was for the benefit of another class entirely, that the suggestion was made in No. 16. There are those whose consciences are not so tender, or who, in defiance of conscience, are openly and constantly wearing hoops. We are grieved at such departures from the principles of this people, and the light we have received on the subject; and what we wish, and what we are laboring for, is to see the practice entirely discontinued among us. But those who are engaged in it, plead necessity. Cords cannot be had; rawhides are worthless, and quilts are suicidal. Then what shall be done? No one likes to go, and no principle of consistency requires one to go, looking as described in the article; and we think the proposition there given, points out a substitute for cords, in every way as unobjectionable as the cords themselves. And if this is so, the material is easily obtained, and no one can have any excuse for longer wearing hoops.

But says one, “If one can use four springs, another can eight, and another twelve, and so on, until we have Miss Crinoline in full.” We beg to be excused. The article gives no warrant for any such course. We were well aware that some would be inclined to run into this very extreme; and hence were particular to expressly limit the number of springs to four. Those who go beyond this, go beyond any suggestion of ours.

And we hear of a sister in Tuscola Co., Mich., who had laid off hoops permanently as she claimed, who as soon as she read the article, went to the store and bought skeletons for every-day use. What was her plea? “There is no more harm in wearing a skeleton than in wearing hoops taken from a skeleton.” We showed in that article that the objection to a skeleton was in its effects, and that springs put into a skirt as suggested would not have that effect. There is therefore an essential difference between the two. But look at this a moment. On her own confession, springs out of a skeleton, are as bad as when worn in one. But the article emphatically condemns skeletons; hence if she is to be influenced by the article, she should reject all springs used in any form whatever. Instead of this, on the strength of the article, she immediately puts on skeletons. Is this consistent? She had laid off hoops. On what ground? Was it because they are condemned by the Testimonies? Then what excuse does she plead for taking them up again? The views of an individual, in an article to which she gives an interpretation which it expressly disclaims. Then what does her confidence in the Testimonies amount to, if it is so easily surrendered as this? She certainly has no warrant from the article, for the course she has taken; and we do not think a reader of the Review will justify her in it.

Another says that she has never had any trouble in finding something that does just as well as springs. Perhaps she has some information which she can give to others. This is just what is wanted, and all that is wanted. Others do have trouble in finding a suitable substitute; and if they can be informed of one, they will no doubt be glad to adopt it.

We will add in closing this article, what we might have appended to our first, that if any persons have anything better to suggest than what is contained in our article, let all concerned be duly notified of what it is, and hundreds will be grateful for the information.