p. 204 | That Suggestion by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 27, 1866

That Suggestion.

By Editor

It seems to be necessary that we add one word more respecting the suggestion made in No. 16, in reference to wearing hoops, as our position is still, by many, strangely it seems to us, misunderstood. And to come at the matter more directly, it may be well to state what it was that called out the article in question. A good S. D. A. minister wrote a note to this Office, headed, “An appeal to the General and Mich. State Conference committees, Officers of the church at Battle Creek, and whom it may concern.” The following extract from this note, which under the circumstances we shall be excused for publishing, will explain the whole matter. It proceeds as follows:

“By verbal and written communications from different quarters, we learn that several of the sisters of the Battle Creek church have adopted, and are wearing, hoops (skeleton skirts); that the resolutions on dress first adopted by the B. C. church, and copied by other churches, are openly disregarded at head quarters.

“It is afflicting to have to meet these things, and I, for one, am perplexed to know what to do or say.

“In most of the churches the hoops are still worn more or less, and the excuse is, There is no rope or cord that can be had that is fit for a substitute. At —— they have endorsed the visions, and want to lay off hoops, but cannot get any suitable cord. It is so in most of the churches. We are constantly inquired of what they must do. Cannot a move be made about having some suitable rope made or obtained, so that this excuse can be removed, and uniformity established?”

It was in reference to, and on account of, this appeal, that we wrote as we did in No. 16. Perhaps we should have left this matter entirely to the General Conference committee; but being a member of the State Conf. committee, and one of the board of officers of the B. C. church; and that church being the one which was called in question, we ventured out with our suggestion in No. 16. It will now be seen for whose benefit that suggestion was designed. Mark the statements in the above extract: “In most of the churches the hoops are still worn more or less, and the excuse is, There is no rope or cord that can be had that is fit for a substitute. At —— they have endorsed the visions, and want to lay off hoops, but cannot get any suitable cord. It is so in most of the churches. We are constantly inquired of what they must do.” That this has been with some a real difficulty, it would be of no use to deny; and we designed our suggestion in all sincerity to meet this difficulty. It was intended for those who were wearing hoops, and who, wishing to lay them off, knew not what to do for a substitute, or wishing to keep them on, plead that excuse for continuing to wear them. If suitable cords could be conveniently had, that excuse could not be urged; and if springs, as now manufactured, which are within everybody’s reach, can be so used as to have the same effect as cords, is not the excuse equally removed? To procure a quantity of cord, as suggested, would be attended with some trouble, no little delay, and a great expense; and from the experience of some here, we knew that three or four springs could be made to answer the same end, with no perceptible difference in appearance, and that they could be obtained more quickly and conveniently than cords, and could be open to no more objections. Hence we suggested them. And the supposition never once entered our mind that those who are not wearing hoops, and have no difficulty in getting along without them, would consider the suggestion anything for them to adopt, or a recommendation for them to change their course in any respect, or that it was anything about which they need concern themselves at all, unless they considered that what we suggested would be positively worse than hoops. For this is the real question: Would those who take such exceptions to our suggestion, rather those who are now wearing skeleton skirts would continue to wear them, than to adopt the skirt we proposed? It does not seem that there can be any question here. Yet those who oppose our article, say, virtually, that they would rather those who are wearing hoops would continue to wear them. In

this, we must differ with them. We would rather they would lay them off.

Since the appearance of our last article on this subject, a few efforts have been made to show our reasoning unsound, which we will notice:

1. Hoops as first introduced were composed of springs sold and used separately and run into a skirt, just as we propose; hence our suggestion is a return to the original fashion. In reply we would say that it will be remembered that springs as first introduced were much larger and stiffer than the springs which we can now procure from a skeleton. They were more like the uncouth and unyielding rattans or whalebone. There has been a change in their manufacture, and their elasticity is so reduced that they now, in limited number, act like cords. There is therefore a vast difference.

2. But springs used in any manner must be hoops; for Webster says that hoops are “a circle or combination of circles, of thin whalebone, metal, or other elastic material used for expanding ladies’ dresses.” Then, we reply, cords would be hoops; for they are certainly “elastic material used for expanding ladies’ dresses;” and on this ground they should not be worn. We base our position on cords, which are admitted and adopted; and if there is any objection to the springs as we suggest, which will not apply to cords, we admit it is so much against us. But we have not yet seen any.

3. But it is said that we abuse and insult the sisters by comparing them to wet hens. We answer, We do not so compare them. A reference to our article will show that the expression is not original with us. It is an expression which has been used more or less by those who hold that our sisters should not go without something to expand in some measure their skirts; and we quoted it as the strongest index of feeling on that side of the question.

4. But just to that degree that springs expand the skirt, more than it would be expanded by cords, or more than it was expanded before hoops were introduced, just to that degree springs are wrong. Agreed. But we do not propose by what we suggest to expand the skirt any more than it would be by cords; and we are assured that they can be so used as not to do it, by those who really wish to keep within bounds in this matter.

5. Then we have suffered a good deal of scorn and odium in vain, if we are now to turn around and adopt what we have been scorned and ridiculed for rejecting. This objection arises from a misunderstanding of what we propose. In the first place, we do not propose that those who have laid off hoops, and find no difficulty in getting along without them, should make any change in their apparel; and in the second place, we do not propose that any one should put on anything that looks to the world like hoops; and as far as the experience goes of those here who have worn the skirt of which we speak, all the odium and ridicule that has ever attached to them for not wearing hoops, attaches to them still; for the world never dream that they have on anything more than a corded skirt.

6. But some are already taking advantage of the suggestion and going beyond the limits proposed. We reply that for this our article is not at all responsible. Such also show that they have no conscience in the matter whatever; and they might just as well develop themselves over this thing as any other; for something will sooner, or later come up to bring them out, and show that the root of the matter is not in them.

Communications have been received pro and con., in reference to this matter. To publish them would perhaps be to unduly lengthen the agitation on this subject, and devote more space to it than is really needful.

Our views and the motives which have prompted us, are now before the reader, as fully as we see any occasion to express them. We believe, though it may look to some like a great stretch of faith, that they will yet be understood, and, in some instances at least, prove beneficial.