Breast Implants, Tanning and Earrings
I’m at the halfpipe last night talking to some member teens and they brought up some very good points in regard to plastic surgery, vanity, tanning and earrings.
To be modest and not draw attention to one’s body is considered a good thing by church leaders, hence the dressing modestly, no tattoos and approach to multiple piercings, etc. But it appears that the church leaders have no problem at all with breast implants, coloured contacts and tanning.
So by God’s decree we should not be wearing more than one earring per ear, but placing bags of saline in one’s chest is A-okay.
Dressing modestly implies what we put ON our bodies, so is it okay to put things INSIDE our bodies? If that’s the distinction, then why no tattoos? If no tattoos, then why is tanning alright? …. on and on it went like this.
What’s your take on these, I would say legitimate, adolescent issues?
Popularity: 5% [?]
[More Help]
I disagree that the Church’s leaders “have no problem at all” with such things.
Take, for example, the words of Jeffrey R. Holland to the young women of the Church, given in the October 2005 General Conference:
8 May 2007 @ 11:53 | Permalink
But the statement was made (and made, and made and embellished and eventually turned into a test of faith by Bednar) about earrings/tatoos and not breast implants/fake-bake/Botox.
Why the focus on the former, not the latter? Perhaps their not aware of current trends…
8 May 2007 @ 12:25 | Permalink
Itbugaf,
Wow, you quoted the whole thing!
Rick,
I envy your half pipe. The Millennium park is just too hard to fall on. I long for the soft embrace of masonite or skatelite supported by pine.
8 May 2007 @ 12:54 | Permalink
No, I didn’t!
But if you’d like to read the whole thing, which I recommend, then go to this link: http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,89-1-559-9,00.html
8 May 2007 @ 12:58 | Permalink
Anonymous, I don’t think Elder Bednar turned President Hinckley’s counsel on tattoos and piercings (or, more accurately, the counsel of the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) into a “test of faith.” It already was a test of faith. Every time the Prophet says we should do something, our faith is being tested. Will we follow him, or won’t we? That’s a question of faith. No need for Elder Bednar to turn it into something it already is.
8 May 2007 @ 13:04 | Permalink
Making anything we do with our own bodies a test of faith places Mormons on a slippery slope that ends at faith-healing at the expense of technology. Avoiding tatoos and multiple piercings of multiple body parts is wise counsel for obvious reasons but making such counsel a test of faith is mean-spirited and silly. The existing counsel we have represents the Church’s first step onto that slippery slope and I think the leadership know that (and that is why the counsel has stopped where it has). Where the Church chooses to go from here will be interesting to observe and I have no idea which direction the leadership will choose.
As for some of the specifics you mention…
Tanning is a natural process enhanced by the use of chemicals or artificially generated UV rays. One is perfectly capable of tanning without ever entering a tanning bed/booth so the Church would have to take a stand for against tanning because there is no such thing as an “artificial” tan. That would be plain silly (though I wouldn’t put it past Church leadership to take such a position).
For the Church to come out against breast implants it would have to condemn cosmetic surgery in general. Sure it could add some sort of proviso like it does with respect to abortion but if the abortion proviso seems problematic any sort of proviso associated with cosmetic surgery would be even more so. Suppose the proviso allowed anyone suffering from some sort of unnatural deformity to undergo cosmetic surgery to repair said deformity, then the Church would need to provide guidance as to what constitutes an “unnatural deformity.” Cleft lips/pallets, extra digits on hands/feet, and other similar birth defects are the easy cases. But what about the guy born with the exceptionally long nose or the exceptionally narrow jaw or the woman born with exceptionally large breasts? Would people born with such “deformities” be permitted to fix those abnormalities without spiritual condemnation? Or what about the woman who’s had to endure a double mastectomy because of breast cancer? Would the Church care to deny her the blessing of restoring her body to its pre-cancerous state?
8 May 2007 @ 13:52 | Permalink
I think endlessnegotiation and I are using the term “test of faith” in a very different sense.
8 May 2007 @ 14:15 | Permalink
Except for the tans that come from spray-on products which don’t use UV rays.
8 May 2007 @ 14:55 | Permalink
Isn’t the Word of Wisdom all about what we do with our own bodies? Was President Grant entering a “slippery slope” when he made obedience to the prohibitions against coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco a test of faith in the limited sense of making it a condition for temple recommends?
What about the Law of Chastity? That’s about what we do with our own bodies. Is that a slippery slope too?
8 May 2007 @ 15:00 | Permalink
ltbugaf:
Those chemicals aren’t paint! They merely stimilate production of skin pigments just like UV rays do. There’s nothing artificial about skin pigment.
I disagree that we’re using the term “test of faith” in any different sense. You phrase #5 in terms of strict obedience to very specific counsel about how to treat our bodies. There is nothing in Mormon doctrine that prohibits Church leadership from expanding on the list of limitations regarding how we treat our bodies (including medical treatments). Whether we choose to obey that cousel becomes the test of faith and I find such trials a mockery in the sight of God. The idea that God really cares about my appearance at all just smacks of arrogance– especially when considered against the doctrine of the resurrection.
8 May 2007 @ 15:26 | Permalink
I take it, then, that you believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are wrong to give this counsel, and that if only their understanding, intelligence and spirituality were as great as your own, they would see the error of their ways.
8 May 2007 @ 15:37 | Permalink
ltbugaf:
How quaint! Pulling out the infallibility card. It doesn’t get any lazier than that. Rather than address my argument directly you insult me with false praise.
8 May 2007 @ 15:57 | Permalink
Endlessnegotiation: I just want to know what your position is. Are you saying these leaders are wrong, or aren’t you? Are you saying your understanding is superior to theirs, or aren’t you? Are you going to state where you stand, or aren’t you?
8 May 2007 @ 16:05 | Permalink
However, if you want me to address directly what you refer to above as an “argument” I’ll do so:
You say it’s ridiculous for God to be concerned about how we make our bodies appear, because it’s inconsistent with the doctrine of resurrection. That leads me to ask the following questions (in addition to the unanswered questions I already posed in comment 9):
Were the instructions given through Moses about personal appearance, diet, and other things one should do with one’s own body also a “mockery before God”?
Is it ridiculous to believe God could be concerned about causing bodily injury or death to ourselves or to others? After all, the resurrection will just take care of all that.
8 May 2007 @ 16:09 | Permalink
No, Endlessnegotiation, I haven’t given you any praise, true or false. All I did was try to sum up what appears to be your position: that you know better than the Prophets who lead us what is and isn’t a “mockery before God.”
I’m very, very sorry if I appeared to be offering you praise of any variety.
8 May 2007 @ 16:18 | Permalink
Itbugaf,
Leaders can speak their own opinion and leaders can be wrong. There comes a time when you need to use faith and intellect to formulate your own opinions. Perhaps you’ve done this, I really don’t know. But don’t knock others for being somewhere else in the spectrum than where you are.
If the leaders of the church came out with Official Declaration #3 stating that BY’s statement about the sun being inhabited is true, would you be so quick to defend this new doctrine as true? Would you chastise anyone who disagreed?
8 May 2007 @ 16:23 | Permalink
And so I’m asking whether endlessnegotiation thinks these leaders—the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve—are wrong (while he, of course, is right).
As to President Young’s comments in which he said “I rather think” the sun is inhabited, I have two answers:
The wording could not make it any more clear that President Young was expressing a personal opinion. The case is quite the opposite with the instructions on personal appearance that have come from our current leaders.
There’s no way to prove that the Sun isn’t inhabited in some way we don’t understand, by beings we don’t know about. That idea isn’t any more supernatural than the one expressed about the dwelling place of angels in D&C 130:6–9.
8 May 2007 @ 16:39 | Permalink
Perhaps it would help if you pointed out to me where you think I’ve done this.
8 May 2007 @ 20:26 | Permalink
“There’s no way to prove that the Sun isn’t inhabited in some way we don’t understand, by beings we don’t know about.”
There are so many negations in that sentence, I do believe my head just exploded.
8 May 2007 @ 23:13 | Permalink
I’m very sorry to hear that. I hope you’ll soon be feeling well enough to think clearly and write meaningfully.
8 May 2007 @ 23:23 | Permalink
ltbugaf:
Re the WoW: Were it not for the national temperance movement and Prohibition in the US the WoW would not exist as it does today. Without those additional societal pressures the Mormon ban on alcohol, coffee, and tea would not exist. It’s a relic of a past age that ought to be changed (though I doubt that it will as, unlike the prohibitions of blacks to the priesthood, there will not exist the countervailing societal pressures).
Re Law of Chastity: Last I checked that has something to do what we do with another person’s body so that’s a non-starter. If you’re unfamiliar with the mechanics there are a few thousand web sites than can help you understand.
Re Moses’instructions to the Israelites: Do we still follow those instructions? That’s a rhetorical question so you don’t have to answer. Prophets serve two purposes on Earth. First, and foremost is to deliver messages from God containing salvific principles– doctrine. These messages are universal and eternal. I think everything outlined in the AoF fall into this category. The second mission prophets serve is to maintain a segment of the population on the earth easily identifiable as “God’s people.” For one reason or another, that I don’t fully understand, God seems to want his followers to “stick out” in a crowd. Prophetic counsel regarding genital mutilation, personal hygeine, and diet are messages to this second effect. These standards change over time and therefore I have a very hard time believing that adhering to this second set of standards carry with them eternal implications.
Re bodily injury to ourselves or others: That’s the dumbest paragraph I think I’ve ever read in the bloggernacle.
9 May 2007 @ 07:04 | Permalink
The church does not and will not come out with a letter-of-the-law list of every possible thing; that goes against the principles of the gospel. The church is overtaxed as it is just to accomplish the three fold mission, and it expects the individual members to be able to find out for themselves on their own. Besides this, it would be counter productive to do so.
Living the gospel is about living according to the spirit of the law, and those who toe the line are just as hyper focused on the letter as the pharisees who crucified Jesus. Breast implants, like you’ve demonstrated, run counter to the principles of the gospel, and the church is against them. Since it’s much more common for people to get piercings and tattoos, they spend more time on these things, but I can virtually guarantee you that if you went to your bishop and asked him if it would be alright to get breast implants, he would strongly counsel you against it.
Oh, and guys, the term “slippery slope” refers to the fallacy in thinking that there is one, not to the fact that one actually exists. I don’t see any authentic “slippery slope” in what you guys are saying and I think that your reasoning and conclusions are fallacious when it comes to that.
9 May 2007 @ 10:45 | Permalink
Onelowerlight:
The fallacy of the slippery slope is the failure by the individual asserting the existence of one to establish the causal chain consequent to the initial action. I established that causal chain in #10 and no one accepted the challenge to refute. Ergo, absent any counter arguments the assertion of the existence of the slippery slope stands. Please, if you’re going to lecture the audience on logic be sure to know your stuff.
I’d also be interested in which specific gospel principles prohibit women from getting breast augmentation or men from getting rhinoplasty. I can think of one myself but given your condescending attitude it’s my guess that you wouldn’t approach it the same way.
9 May 2007 @ 13:15 | Permalink
And you back this amazing conclusion with what?
And so I ask again the very simple and straightforward questions I asked before, but which you still haven’t answered: Do you, or do you not, believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are wrong about this issue, while you are right? Do you, or do you not, believe that your insight into the will of God is greater than theirs? Simple questions—even a simple yes or no will do fine.
Except when it has something to do with what you do to your own body.
No. But the Israelites did, or should have, just as we do, or should, follow the guidance of our prophet today. In asking this, you’re merely dodging the question (which seems to be a favorite hobby of yours). I’ll repeat it, so you have another chance to give an actual answer: Were the commandments that Moses gave to the Children of Israel from God, or were they “mockery before God”?
Cool word! Did you find it, or make it yourself?
So as long as the prophet is giving you instructions that pertain only to a limited period of time, it’s perfectly all right to ignore or disobey? Interesting. It was perfectly fine, then, for Uzziah to reach out and steady the Ark of the Covenant, because carrying around an ark isn’t applicable to all people in all dispensations. (See 2 Samuel 6:6–7) He didn’t need to worry about following instructions from the prophet.
Perhaps you should read more ;) But seriously, is that supposed to be some sort of argument by label? Are you trying to refute or contradict what I’ve said by calling it dumb? I’m sure you can at least try to do better, so let me pose the question again: You say God can’t possibly be concerned with the appearance of our bodies, because that appearance will be miraculously transformed by the resurrection. So what about other things that will be taken care of by the resurrection, such as maiming or killing? Does God care about those? If he does, then what makes you think he can’t care about our physical appearance?
10 May 2007 @ 21:23 | Permalink
Hey, what about laser hair removal for a woman with facial hair? (And does the doctrine about every hair on our head being restored during the resurrection apply here?).
Ltbugaff, one can fully respect the prophets as being superior in both wisdom and spirituality while still realizing that prophets are not always perfect. Since there will always be the “fallible” loophole, demanding a black and white answer regarding the prophet’s overall intelligence or spirituality is kind of pointless.
Anyway, the actual topic at hand could also include make-up, hair dyes, tweezing, shaving legs and armpits, and on and on. I think when it comes to ANY form of body alteration, it all depends on WHY a person is doing it? Are they obsessed with worldly values, are they taking things to an extreme to out-do the people around them or make a certain statement?
I think there is a difference between huge breast implants that are obviously meant to scream “sexpot” and modest implants to correct an extreme genetic disadvantage of a very flat chest that makes a woman feel unfeminine. Same principle for every other kind of plastic surgery. Maybe it’s weird to try and look 20 years younger, but what if someone wants to stop looking tired, or grumpy even when they are not?
I think it’s different to correct something that makes a person feel self-conscious or improve self-esteem vs. trying to compete or keep up with extreme fashion statements and social pressures. If it wasn’t, then it would seem that the church should be just like the pentacostal Baptist church that my Kentucky relatives were members of, which prohibited ALL make-up, jewelry or women’s hairstyles other than a bun.
Sure, tans and implants can get taken to an extreme, and could be against gospel principles. But since peircing and tattoos have been singled out in particular, I would say that this issue is less about body alteration and more about social statements.
11 May 2007 @ 00:20 | Permalink
Which, of course, I have not done.
11 May 2007 @ 05:33 | Permalink
Can you describe this loophole and how it functions?
11 May 2007 @ 05:36 | Permalink
I agree, though I would add the caveat that women—and men as well—need to take have a care about what we allow to make us self-conscious and affect our self-esteem. By being more accepting of our own selves, as Elder Holland exhorts, we can avoid the distortions he warns of.
11 May 2007 @ 05:43 | Permalink
Oh, drat, there goes my proofreading again: that’s “…need to have a care about…” in the last paragraph.
11 May 2007 @ 05:44 | Permalink
Yes, I have some ear hairs that I’d just as soon leave in the grave. :)
11 May 2007 @ 06:17 | Permalink
Oh I certainly hope not. I have PCOS. Not as much extra hair growth as some with it, but enough that I do not want it back, lol.
11 May 2007 @ 16:46 | Permalink
ltbugaff, re: comment #26 I might remind you of what you said in comment #11,
Note the words “intelligence” and “spirituality” in that sentence. What you have been asking is whether endlessnegotiation thinks they are more intelligent or spiritual than the church leaders, right? You asked for a simple yes or no answer after stating in comment #24 “Do you, or do you not, believe that your insight into the will of God is greater than theirs”.
As for the loophole, even if somebody fully agrees that the prophets are indeed more intelligent and spiritual etc., there is always that remote possibility, due to the fallability of the human prophet, that just this particular time, they could be wrong. So even if somebody were to answer “No, I do not think that I have more intelligence, spirituality nor insight than the prophets”, they could STILL wonder if perhaps, in this particular instance, the church leaders are in error. This possibility will always exist as long as the prophet is a human and not a God, hence creating a loophole for any believing member who wants to argue that the prophet could be wrong about any particular issue. That is why I think your questions along those lines are pointless.
11 May 2007 @ 22:39 | Permalink
Can someone please point me to the actual point of controversy?
Why does a talk (given, what was it, 15 years ago?) that addresses tattoos and multiple piercings somehow imply approval of implants? I suppose it also approves garters, dressing in plastic garbage bags, duct tape prom dresses, earth shoes, and elmers glue coveralls, since none of those are mentioned, either.
12 May 2007 @ 01:47 | Permalink
What I have been asking is whether Endlessnegotiation thinks he’s right about these issues while the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are all wrong about them. And I have wondered whether, if he does think so, he attributes their failure to see the great truth he sees to his own superiority as a thinker or as a seer, on the particular issue in question.
However, I’m sure you can see that us not quite the same as asking for an assessment of “the prophet’s overall intelligence or spirituality” But it’s close, I grant you. In any case, I don’t see why it’s pointless.
I can’t see how that matters. If the Prophet’s fallibility makes him wrong from time to time, what does this have to do with my responsibility to follow him? Nothing, as near as I can tell. For example, I don’t see any loopholes built into D&C 21:4–6.
12 May 2007 @ 11:52 | Permalink
Well, done, Alison! I hope rick will answer your question.
12 May 2007 @ 20:28 | Permalink
…although the counsel we’re talking about has been given much more recently than 15 years ago. Here’s one of President Hinckley’s remarks from our most recent General Conference:
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c6f0b5658af22110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
12 May 2007 @ 20:58 | Permalink
ltbugaff, I guess I should clarify that the loophole is not about one’s responsibility to follow the prophet, but rather one’s ability to question a certain statement in a forum such as this, without necessarily thinking they are smarter than the prophet in general.
It’s fair enough to say, “Hey, if you believe he is a prophet, then perhaps you’re better off just following his counsel even if he is wrong from time to time.” But, I just think that challenging someone to admit that they must be awfully arrogant to imagine that they could be smarter than the prophet is going to go nowhere in a conversation. I just bring this up because I have seen you use this tactic before. I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that sort of angle doesn’t do much except shut down the conversation.
13 May 2007 @ 20:13 | Permalink
What question would I be answering?
I’ve never mentioned anything about a talk.
All I did was forward the concerns of some teens to the blog and say that I could understand the mixed messages they were getting.
14 May 2007 @ 08:27 | Permalink
Actually, I didn’t ask endlessnegotiation to admit anything at all about his own arrogance, or lack thereof. What I did was challenge endlessnegotiation to consider the question in this light and take a position. He has every right to believe that he’s right on these issues while all 15 of the living Apostles of Jesus Christ are wrong. I just think he should decide, and declare, whether he thinks that or not.
14 May 2007 @ 13:31 | Permalink
RE: #38
Rick, the question I’m referring to is the question Alison asked: How do you justify the conclusion that the Prophet’s counsel about earrings and tattoos constitutes official endorsement of breast implants, etc.? That’s like listening to a talk about not abusing your spouse and concluding, “He didn’t mention not abusing children, so I guess it’s OK.”
14 May 2007 @ 13:39 | Permalink
And who are you to make such demands?
14 May 2007 @ 13:51 | Permalink
Just another commenter. He doesn’t have to respond. In fact, you’ll notice that he hasn’t.
Am I to understand that asking a question of another commenter, expecting an answer—as you just did—is a sign of self-righteousness?
14 May 2007 @ 19:04 | Permalink
I’m not sure that I came to that conclusion.
I am of the opinion that there is a tacit acceptance of breast augmentation surgery (especially in Utah) and a statement directly from an apostle about earrings or tattoos.
I am merely sympathetic to the mixed messages being sent to LDS youth.
15 May 2007 @ 08:22 | Permalink
I’ve been wondering what it is you’ve seen in Utah that communicates a strong acceptance or endorsement of breast enhancement.
15 May 2007 @ 11:23 | Permalink
That’s fine. I was just trying to point out, with my first comment, that I don’t think the messages are as mixed as you think.
15 May 2007 @ 11:25 | Permalink
Itbugaf,
Perhaps they are and you’re too myopic to see them?
15 May 2007 @ 12:00 | Permalink
To see what?
15 May 2007 @ 12:13 | Permalink
“I’ve been wondering what it is you’ve seen in Utah that communicates a strong acceptance or endorsement of breast enhancement.”
Bishop’s or Apostles wives who have taken advantage of the procedure, primarily.
15 May 2007 @ 12:54 | Permalink
Who were they? How did you come by the knowledge that they’d had the surgery?
15 May 2007 @ 13:15 | Permalink
I don’t feel the need to cite every person’s name or how I know they’ve had breast augmentation on a public weblog, thank-you.
I think you can do a pretty good job of identifying an enhanced bosom completely by sight, if need be.
15 May 2007 @ 13:32 | Permalink
You think I can tell this? Or you think you can tell this? For now, I’ll assume you mean the latter.
You think by looking at the wife of a Church leader, you can tell by some special gift you have whether she’s had breast augmentation surgery? Wow. I can’t. I don’t know what your system is, but it must be extraordinary. You just have a special instinct about this? You know ‘em when you see ‘em?
15 May 2007 @ 18:37 | Permalink
Most people can tell when a woman has had a boob job….it isn’t too hard to figure that out….no special instinct neccesary!
15 May 2007 @ 21:20 | Permalink
I’m truly amazed at your gift, and also with the level of personal contact you both seem to have with Apostles and their wives. I guess offering the least shred of evidence to show that you both possess this ability would just be too embarrassing? Or perhaps just the tiniest indication that rick’s assertions about the wives of Apostles are true? Anything?
15 May 2007 @ 21:34 | Permalink
Perhaps my sarcasm is unattractive and unkind. Let me rephrase:
I don’t believe, for the briefest of moments, that either you or rick can tell, by looking at the wife of a Church leader, whether or not she’s had breast surgery, or any other kind of surgery. If you’re so confident that you can, then I think your confidence is misplaced. You’ve given me no reason at all to believe that rick’s assertions about these leaders’ wives are true.
Given that, of course, we ought to remember that even if these women whose breasts rick has been paying such attention to have had surgery, there are instances in which such surgery is appropriate, as noted in many comments above. And, of course, it’s also none of rick’s business.
15 May 2007 @ 23:17 | Permalink
The reason why all men in leadership must not have facial hair is because of the connection with the “Bearded Polygamist” image. If you don’t believe me on this one just look at a picture of all the prophets and you tell me between which president was polygamy outlawed.
The reasons why tattoos, earrings and the like are forbidden frowned upon are:
The reasons why breast implants, tanning, and colored contacts are:
1 The church will never tall you straight out what to do with your breasts
2 People tan, implant, and color to look like other people and that is fitting in.
People who wear lots of earrings, have tattoos, get their tongues forked are trying to distinguish themselves among other people by standing out in the crowd.
Us Mormons, who dress modestly, have modest breast implants, wear only one earring per ear, sport a modest tan, and wear modestly colored contacts are trying to distinguish ourselves by blending into the crowd.
18 May 2007 @ 18:05 | Permalink
“The reason why all men in leadership must not have facial hair is because of the connection with the “Bearded Polygamist” image.”
Hmmm, interesting, I have never heard of this before (not doubting you) so when was this stated? I would be interested in hearing how it came about.
18 May 2007 @ 18:54 | Permalink
You seem to be saying that the Church continued to practice and condone polygamy all the way up to the presidency of David O. McKay. Is that really what you mean?
19 May 2007 @ 20:37 | Permalink
Okay, I’ll say it again…. It is not hard to tell whether a woman has had a boob job. There is no special gift, you don’t need to be staring or a perv, and I personally don’t feel the need to provide evidence. Nor do give a crap whether you think I can or not. It doesn’t matter whether it is the wife of a church leader or not. It is just something that isn’t hard to figure out.
There is nothing embarrassing about it either. It is the way the world is moving, most people are vain. They will tummy tuck, boob job, botox, and lipo the hell out of their bodies, and I don’t believe that it is to “blend” with the world. It is all vanity.
We have seen this in our own town, and the general population is LDS. It is just very hypocritical to say that our bodies are temples, and then alter it in any way.
And I really don’t have any problem with tattoos, piercings, or facial hair. I don’t think that someone is holier, or better than someone who has any of these things.
And just to be clear… you are telling me that if Sister So & So comes to church one day as flat as a board and has a bit of a tummy, and then the next time you see her she has lost the belly and has a D cup, you wouldn’t notice? Give me a break…there is no special gift in recognizing this!
19 May 2007 @ 21:46 | Permalink
Darlene Young wrote a very funny poem about boob jobs in Utah.
21 May 2007 @ 01:23 | Permalink
Dar, I’m sorry, but if rick is going to claim that the wives of Apostles have done this, then he’s going to have to back himself up with a little evidence, which so far he’s absolutely failed to do. You don’t live in Utah, so I can’t see how your experience in your own town has anything to do with rick’s claims above.
21 May 2007 @ 07:04 | Permalink
No, I don’t live in Utah…however I take my daughter to a dance camp at BYU every year, and have done the temple square deal. And I have seen how the woman of this area will dress (wearing things that you know darn well they are tucking & rolling their garments) and well, about the boob jobs and
botox. Like I’ve said many times now, it isn’t hard to spot. The evidence is the rather obvious perky twins, and the lack of ability to show any emotions with their facial expressions.
And by the way… the area we live in Southern Alberta, is like a little Utah.
Highly populated with LDS, who tend to set their own principles, or tweak the ones in place to better suit themselves.
I personally don’t care what people do to their bodies, what gets me going, is how hypocritical LDS people can be, and women will do almost anything for vanity, and then justify what they are doing with some ridiculous reasoning.
“Our bodies are a temple” except for…..
21 May 2007 @ 11:52 | Permalink
OK OK! Let us just end this. What would Gordon B. Hinckley say?
And if our bodies are temples . . . don’t we adorn our temples with things we don’t place or regular buildings?
P.S. Even a jeweler has to look closely at a Cubic Zirconia to tell it’s not a real diamond. So no one can really tell every time even a plastic surgeon.
21 May 2007 @ 12:13 | Permalink
So…
As Dar and Rick stroll about temple square, they use their special gift to pick out which women have had breast surgery and which haven’t. They can also tell which of these women are bishops’ wives and apostles’ wives—just by sight! (And of course, there’s no such thing as a woman with large or firm breasts who hasn’t had surgery—no such thing as a figure that’s like that naturally, and certainly no such thing as a push-up bra. Those are only an urban legend.)
Rick used to lament that he lacked superpowers, but I see he actually possesses at least one.
21 May 2007 @ 19:19 | Permalink
ltbugaf,
When I read your comments, I think of what you must be like as a ward missionary or a home teacher.
Then I think of church statistics on missionary work and retention.
Then it all makes sense.
22 May 2007 @ 07:24 | Permalink
JM:
Interesting conclusion you’ve reached: Questioning someone else’s conclusions = driving people away from the Church.
Have you considered applying this to yourself?
22 May 2007 @ 07:36 | Permalink
Dar:
The reason it matters whether the women are the wives of Church leaders, and the reason it matters whether we are talking about Utah, is that I’m responding to the claims rick made in comments 43 and 48: He claims
and that the evidence for that claim is
This naturally makes me curious how he has come to know of the wives of Utah bishops or the wives of apostles who have done this. I’m not saying it can’t have happened. I’m not even saying it would be wrong if it had happened. I’m just trying to find out if rick has something to back his claim.
22 May 2007 @ 07:55 | Permalink
Johnna, I just got to read the poem. I loved it!
22 May 2007 @ 08:18 | Permalink
ltbugaf, I find it interesting that if I say a particular group of people have had plastic surgery, you require some sort of tangible proof but if I claim to have heard God’s voice telling me the church is true, you’re fine with that sans proof.
Are you currently married to someone who’s had breast augmentation? Is that why this is such a touchy subject?
22 May 2007 @ 08:56 | Permalink
Wrong.
Anyone who is asked to test the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, or the Church, can get his own witness for himself, without having to merely take your word for it.
But why are you dodging the question yet again?
Although that’s absolutely none of your business, I’ll answer: No.
The fact that I question your claims doesn’t make it a “touchy” subject, or that I’m somehow being oversensitive. Perhaps you would do better to stop condescending and start answering.
22 May 2007 @ 09:13 | Permalink
I don’t have to answer to you or anyone.
I’d like to tell you that in the last 30 min. I’ve heard the voice of God confirming to me that the church is true. As a believing member, I’d like you to refrain from questioning me. God told me I’m right. If you don’t agree7X8Rith me, I think you need to pray about it.
22 May 2007 @ 09:21 | Permalink
Of course, that’s true. You don’t have to answer. I just thought you might like to have some credibility.
You’re lying. You’re making up facts to suit your purposes, as, unfortunately, you have before on other threads.
22 May 2007 @ 09:28 | Permalink
Even if this distasteful mockery of my religion were true, your second sentence would still make no sense. Why should anyone refrain from questioning you? You’ve never refrained from questioning the testimonies of others. I’ve never said you have to.
22 May 2007 @ 09:30 | Permalink
Well that is very presumptuous of you. I never said that Rick and I went to temple square at all. I believe if you re-read my comment, it will read that “I” take my daughter to BYU every year. NOT RICK. And yes you are pretty much right on, I walk around and stare at women’s chests all day, and use my “special gift” of distinguishing which ones are real or fake. Whatever!
I know plenty of bishop, and SP wives in our area and I figured out all the augmentations, before being told. It isn’t hard, it isn’t a gift.
And… Push up bras, really they have those. I am so stoked to go see this new invention. Thanks for the tip. I am running out to Victoria Secret now!!!
22 May 2007 @ 09:33 | Permalink
You’re right. I should have realized that rick just perceived these things about apostles’ wives in Utah by using his extrasensory perception to detect them from all the way up in Canada.
22 May 2007 @ 09:36 | Permalink
“So no one can really tell every time even a plastic surgeon.”
Well I would find a new plastic surgeon then.
22 May 2007 @ 09:38 | Permalink
ltbugaf, until you start treating me with the respect accorded to someone who has had a direct communication with God, I refuse to take anything you say seriously.
Please do not question my faith.
It sounds like you may be having some testimony problems. Can I call some missionaries in your area to come and pray with you?
22 May 2007 @ 09:43 | Permalink
Perhaps that’s meant to satirize something, but I don’t know what.
Juvenile mockery is no substitute for evidence or logic.
22 May 2007 @ 09:46 | Permalink
Evidence and logic can teach you many things of this world, ltbugaf, but as some point you really have to put your faith in Him.
Have you been reading your scriptures faithfully?
All of your questioning can be resolved by careful study of the scriptures.
22 May 2007 @ 09:49 | Permalink
Rick, you seem to think there’s something unresolved in my mind. There isn’t. I’m quite firm in my belief that you’ve lied. If you’d like to show otherwise, go ahead.
22 May 2007 @ 09:58 | Permalink
You will never have a true knowledge of my faithfulness until you become like a child and listen to the small, still voice telling you I am correct.
Your own testimony and worthiness problems aside, I think you can eventually get to a place, spiritually, where you will recognize the truth in my words.
22 May 2007 @ 10:23 | Permalink
Dar in Comment #75 you stated:
As you quoted me from my post #62. But you are missing the point.
I have met men who have become women. And the only way I can tell about their breast surgery is . . . breasts like that don’t grow on male bodies. You are wrong. If you have the right surgeon no one would be able to tell just by looking at you fully clothes or not. That is just a simple fact.
Now lets get back to our kids and spouses and stop this silly endeavor? Truce anyone?
22 May 2007 @ 12:15 | Permalink
I’m not sure what rick has been getting at with this little game he’s playing. I think perhaps he believes he’s satirizing me—that his responses somehow reflect what I’m saying to him. They don’t. I’ve never told him he can’t question my faith. Maybe he’s just angry at having his dishonesty exposed, and, having nothing sensible to say, falls back on trying to annoy me into leaving. I don’t know. Apparently he’s not going to tell us.
22 May 2007 @ 18:09 | Permalink
…or maybe he’s upset about having been completely wrong when he said “if I claim to have heard God’s voice telling me the church is true, you’re fine with that sans proof.”
22 May 2007 @ 18:25 | Permalink
Or maybe it’s you,ltbugaf. You make it very difficult to discuss anything.
Perhaps you should try to accept everyones opinions, even though they may be different than yours.
You are very defensive, and it isn’t nice to call people liars, especially when you claim to be following Christ’s ways.
Actually, you are quite hypocritical in that you call people “condescending” and “juvenile”, and you are doing exactly that.
I guess you didn’t read the let’s all get along and stop this nonsense posts.
I’m done.
It is not putting a pleasant
22 May 2007 @ 21:06 | Permalink
OOPS.. I really was done.
Please disregard that last line.
22 May 2007 @ 21:08 | Permalink
When they’re lying, sometimes it’s necessary.
Defensive of what? Of the truth? Of the necessity to give some substance to one’s claims and accusations?
23 May 2007 @ 10:02 | Permalink
I think he means defensive of yourself. You aren’t ALWAYS right, you know. It’s ok to admit that. And when you don’t agree with someone you don’t HAVE to get personal and then jump on them when they get personal back. You are being nicer than you used to be, but you still have a self righteousness that isn’t really conducive to playing nicely together. Let’s all be grown ups now.
23 May 2007 @ 11:25 | Permalink
I think basic honesty is necessary to a reasonable debate. People shouldn’t manufacture “facts” to support their positions.
For that reason, it’s not “getting personal” to point out that someone is not being honest. Rick is not being honest when he says he knows of Apostles’ wives and the wives of Utah bishops are having plastic surgery that sends a message of acceptance or endorsement. I’ve given him ample opportunities to show that I’m wrong. If he wants to, he still can.
23 May 2007 @ 11:39 | Permalink
And way back at Comment 50…
rick said: “I don’t feel the need to cite every person’s name or how I know they’ve had breast augmentation on a public weblog, thank-you.”
LET IT GO!!
23 May 2007 @ 11:54 | Permalink
Yes, Dar. I already know that rick refused to give any evidence whatsoever that he wasn’t lying. He still refuses to do so. I’m not sure why you feel the need to point this out. I ask him what evidence he has to support his claim, and he says he doesn’t feel the need to give any. Got it.
23 May 2007 @ 12:02 | Permalink
Before we were interrupted we were, I believe, discussing breast implants in Utah.
It is a well known fact among Salt Lake members that there is a ward in the Salt Lake area called the ‘Silicon Ward’ for reasons that should be fairly obvious.
Anyone who has spent any time around the LDS elite in Utah can attest to the ‘Barbie-like’ appearance of many of the female members. Visual confirmation of augmentation is fairly easy to achieve.
For all the information you never wanted to know vis-a-vis recognizing implants, please refer to any of the many, many pages on the Internet that show how to spot them.
If the Church would really like to put an end to all the petty squabbling over this and many other issues (drinking Pepsi anyone?) all they would have to do is issue a direct statement denouncing or supporting it.
As is usual, they have not made a statement which leaves the membership at large to fight over whose naval-gazing is correct.
I believe that issues like this one are one of the main sources for member-on-member violence – ok maybe that’s a bit much – let’s say conflict, than any weighty topics that actually matter.
I mean, good grief!
The membership should not have to argue amongst themselves in regard to this petty minutia – there are bigger fishes to fry.
23 May 2007 @ 15:43 | Permalink
Where is this a well-known fact? Are you going to show any evidence for this claim, or just harrumph again that I have no right to challenge it?
In that case, it should be no problem at all for you to produce someone who has spent time around the LDS elite in Utah who will confirm your story.
Where do you see the membership arguing among themselves in regard to this? Where is this causing conflict in the Church?
23 May 2007 @ 19:26 | Permalink
… and by the way, are you still standing by the announcement you made in comment 70?
23 May 2007 @ 19:28 | Permalink
Utah surgery statistics aside, I think the original question was about whether getting implants is morally comparable to tattoos and peircings. This is the subject I would like to return to.
Personally I think it’s not doctrinal to believe that respecting one’s temple means NO body alterations whatsoever, otherwise not even the conservative two earrings would still be allowed in women. This is why I think it has more to do with social statements.
I would argue that tummy tucks and MODERATE breast implants really don’t make any more of a social statement than conservative jewelry and make-up (and no I have not had these procedures in case you are wondering, but I don’t have a problem with women who do it tastefully). Pehaps it is indeed about vanity, but keep in mind that all jewelry, makeup, hairstyles and manicures are about vanity as well really, not to mention abdominal crunches for a flatter tummy.
Oversized boob jobs, on the other hand, certainly make an obvious lame statement. On the other hand there are some very natural looking “anatomical” shaped implants that when utilized in a smaller cc size on a previously smaller-than-size-A chested women can look very natural indeed. Probably not so detectable as the showy high-on-the-chest-cavity half-melon variety.
Anyhow, I think the motivation behind the action is key here. Is the alteration due to excessive vanity, social rebellion, overt attempts at sexual attetion or just a desire to not feel embarrassed or self-conscious?
I do wish that the counsel had simply been to avoid extremes in fashion and body alteration, and then let the people govern for themselves, according to their own conscience, and be likewise accountable. It would save everybody from a lot of arguing. And yes ltbugaff, I have heard many arguments among the membership about these things first hand, and NO, ltbugaff, I am not saying that I think I am smarter and more spiritual than the church leadership, I just said I “wish….”.
And ltbugaff, once again I’d like to point out that trying to corner somebody into clarifying or justifying some side statement they made is usually a dead end road. Certainly this tactic may have its usefulness on some occasions, but in most cases you pursue this based on some little comment that is not really that central to the original topic in the first place. It’s very distracting. I know what you are trying to do but we are not in the court room here. And even if Utah Mormon women do not have a higher rate or breast surgery, I think we all know, first hand, of Mormon women who have had the operation (I can certainly think of a few who have TOLD me so). What really matters to the conversation is that there are Mormon women who do indeed get implants, be it Utah or wherever. Anyhow, why not spend more energy contributing your own opinions and/or facts as a reply rather than invest SO much time trying to prove how unsubstantiated someone else is on EVERY SINGLE little comment they make? Sure, take your stab at someone’s reasoning if you like, but be a little more selective about what you tenaciously pursue OK?
30 May 2007 @ 00:06 | Permalink
Another thought on vanity, I suppose eliminating facial hair in women could also be seen as vanity, I forgot to include that on my list. Don’t worry Mary, I don’t have a problem with it, I went and got a few laser zaps on my upper lip and I certainly don’t feel one bit guilty!
30 May 2007 @ 00:12 | Permalink
I think it’s justified in this case. Rick is making very specific claims that call for support. He claims to have reliable information that (1) two or more Utah Bishops’ wives and (2) two or more Apostles’ wives have fake breasts. Now, there are, to my knowledge, only 14 women in the world who fit into the latter class. It shouldn’t be hard to support that claim if it’s true, or to simply admit that he was making it up if it’s false. So far, he hasn’t provided any evidence at all that either assertion is true, and both should evoke skepticism.
I’m not trying to derail the conversation off onto a side line, but at the same time, I don’t think we should just let fantastic claims such as these go unchallenged.
4 Jun 2007 @ 11:50 | Permalink
Are you saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Hmmm. How delightfully ironic.
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:08 | Permalink
So you still don’t want to answer?
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:13 | Permalink
…and no, I’m not asking for extraordinary evidence. Just any old ordinary, run-of-the-mill evidence will be better than the nothing you’ve offered so far.
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:14 | Permalink
…and feel free, if you’re in the mood, to explain why my request for evidence is ironic. I assume you’re still founding this on the untrue and thoroughly discredited claim you made about me in comment 68, but don’t let me put words in your mouth.
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:18 | Permalink
Looking back over the thread, I think I should have given endlessnegotiation and Nermalcat a better explanation of my meaning after comment 12 and comment 25. Let me see if I can improve:
Re: Comment 12: I said nothing about anyone being infallible. What I asked is whether endlessnegotiation believes the combined view of all of the 15 living, fallible Apostles of Jesus Christ is inferior to his own view, on the matters in discussion.
Re: Comment 25: Let me illustrate why I think it’s not pointless to ask the question above, by way of analogy. If my teenage son has an opinion on a matter of physical science that conflicts with the stated conclusions of a panel of 15 Nobel Laureate Physicists, then it’s entirely possible that he’s right and they’re all wrong. But I think I would still ask him to consider their credentials versus his own. That wouldn’t be pointless.
4 Jun 2007 @ 12:33 | Permalink
OK, then state exactly why you believe the claim is unsubstantiated and then move on and let the conversation get back on track.
Re: Your insistence that endlessnegotion answer your question, as referred to in #101 above: Obviously he thinks it’s possible, so why harass him? Just respond by explaining why it is your belief that the apostles are right.
I’m just suggesting you spend more time conveying your own ideas as substantial than trying so hard to make others look ridiculous. Ditto for your reference to comment 25 in #101. By way of analogy, just state the reasons why you respect the opinions of the Nobel Laurate Physicists. Certainly explaining why you have an opinion isn’t pointless in and of itself. However, there is no need to ridicule your teenage son by asking courtroom style questions in an attempt to corner him into seeing things your way. Even if your point of view were correct, I still maintain that this tactic is indeed pointless.
9 Jun 2007 @ 22:47 | Permalink
Also ltbugaf, how many people actually answer your repeated interrogations to your satisfaction? Do you feel triumphant when they find this off-putting and stop responding to you?
Meanwhile, I think telling your teenager to just accept that the apostles are smarter than them is not an effective way to deal with the subject. Obviously gaining a testimony regarding the prophet and apostles is an important part of being a church member, but that is a personal matter. In the meantime, there are a lot of interesting ways we can discuss this without just resorting to the apostles-are-smarter-than-you approach.
9 Jun 2007 @ 23:42 | Permalink
Just realized that my last sentance in #102 is a bit too wordy, amongst other sentence structure problems to be found in my post. Believe it or not my mother just got her Masters degree in English. She, along with my old English teachers would not approve. I, myself, attended nursing school many years ago and am more skilled at descriptive medical charting than eloquent written dialogue.
Also, sometimes I’m in a rush to post the comment before my piece of junk computer crashes, hence the occasional spelling errors and lack of proofreading. Sorry if that annoys you Kim!
10 Jun 2007 @ 00:26 | Permalink
Some people who are engaged in these discussions, or debates, answer the questions that are put to them, directly and forthrightly. Some don’t. I think it’s better when people do. I don’t really know what the percentages are.
Quite the opposite. I hate it. I’d much rather have rick, or anyone else, simply answer the questions that people ask. I try to answer the questions that people ask me. When someone challenges my assertions, I provide whatever evidence I have to back them up, rather than act indignant about being challenged.
I’ve never said that this is the only thing that should be considered. But I do say it is important, and one of the things we definitely ought to consider. I don’t know why you think it should never be considered.
10 Jun 2007 @ 05:25 | Permalink
I’m not trying to corner him into seeing things my way. I’m not naive enough to think he’s going to see things my way. Remember, the person I’m addressing is not always the person I’m seeking to convince. When two Presidential candidates hold a debate, they’re not expecting to convert each other. What they’re trying to do is convince others who are watching and listening. That’s what I’m trying to do here.
10 Jun 2007 @ 05:34 | Permalink
Ltbugaf: I’m not saying that the wisdom and spirituality of the apostles should “never be considered”. It’s just that many people (especially teenagers) are not satisfied with the simple answer that the authority figures are smarter than them.
As ridiculous as you may think this is, there are many believing, adult members who will occasionally wonder if the apostles are giving perfect counsel ALL of the time. Perhaps you may see the odds of the common church member being right, as opposed to the 15 united apostles as relatively slim, which is fair enough. I have no problem with you pointing out this opinion, but why ridicule somebody else for feeling doubts about a certain counsel? Why harass them with repeated questions? A person’s faith in the apostles should not be based on status or the fact that its 15 against 1 anyway.
Rest assured that the other readers here are quite capable of taking your reasoning into consideration, and can then decide for themselves who is more credible. No need to keep asking somebody the same question over and over again until everybody is bored.
While not everybody may accept that Utah breast surgery is more prevalent than in other states, I think we can all accept that it’s very likely that there is probably more than one wife of a church leader who has had breast implants. So the question remains, are breast implants OK or not? That is the issue I’d really like to explore, but it seems that everybody has been driven away from this thread.
Also, is it really doctinal to believe that absolutely NO body alterations are acceptable, in light of the fact that two earring holes are OK in women? Anybody care to address this question?
10 Jun 2007 @ 10:55 | Permalink
“Remember, the person I’m addressing is not always the person I’m seeking to convince.”
I believe the term you’re looking for is ‘grandstanding’. :P
10 Jun 2007 @ 16:01 | Permalink
While, not specifically Utah, here is one source regarding regional statistics on breast surgery.
10 Jun 2007 @ 17:50 | Permalink
No, I don’t find that ridiculous, and I wonder the same thing myself. Why, then, should it be so hard to just answer the question I asked?
I want to clarify where people stand. If they firmly believe they’re right while all the apostles are wrong, then they’re perfectly free to think so. But why shouldn’t they confront that question?
Kim, your source on regional statistics is somewhat interesting. I wish it showed more of a breakdown—for example, how much of region 5 is accounted for by California? I wish it showed actual per-capita rates of surgery rather than mere raw numbers—a significant difference in the population of one region or another makes the figures almost useless in determining whether people have them at higher or lower rates.
11 Jun 2007 @ 08:12 | Permalink
“Why, then, should it be so hard to just answer the question I asked?”
So why ask the question when you already know the answer? Why is it so important to harrass the person to answer?
You posed the question in such a way to try and make the person look ridiculous. How absurd of them to possibly think that a common church member could possibly have more insight than 15 living apostles, right?
C’mon ltbugaff, don’t try to tell me you were genuinely interested in the person’s answer. You were just trying to belittle them. Admit it!
11 Jun 2007 @ 10:12 | Permalink
Hey, is anyone else here reminded of the Breakfast Club? “Just answer the questionn, Clair!”
11 Jun 2007 @ 10:15 | Permalink
I think what I was trying to do was show why I don’t find we should follow the person’s opinion, rather than the guidance of Prophets and Apostles.
No, rick. If I had been trying to impress people with how clever I am, that would be grandstanding. But what I was trying to do was show those who read the ‘blog why your claims shouldn’t be believed.
11 Jun 2007 @ 19:00 | Permalink
Sorry, that should have been “…why I don’t believe we should follow…”
11 Jun 2007 @ 19:01 | Permalink
Yeah, I, and probably all the other readers here, understood that the first time you asked the question. Four times was not really necessary.
I lost count of how many times you demanded that Rick provide Utah breast implant evidence. I think all of us readers whom you are so concerned about are smart enough to get your point after the first time you asked. Furthermore, I don’t think it was so harmful for Rick to mention something that was simply a peronal observation and could be taken as such.
Nevertheless, there really is NO specific church counsel saying NO plastic surgery, and there are many LDS people who partake of plastic surgery without criticism. That fact alone is enough to send a mixed message to a teen who has just been told that tattoos and peircings are wrong because it modifies our “temple”.
12 Jun 2007 @ 12:07 | Permalink
How could it be a personal observation when there was no opportunity to make such an observation?
13 Jun 2007 @ 08:58 | Permalink
Ok I guess I should have also included “the observations made be people he trusts”. Anyhow, the point is that I think the readers here are able to interpret Rick’s statement as such. If you feel compelled to point out that he has not provided us with medical records or official statistics to prove what he says, mentioning this ONCE is sufficient to make your point.
Anyhow, I have a question for you ltbugaf, do you believe that all cosmetic surgery is against church counsel? Just curious. Question for everybody else, do you think the church should counsel openly against plastic surgery to be consistent with the tattoo/earring counsel?
13 Jun 2007 @ 13:51 | Permalink
No, as I noted in comment 28 (see also 29) and in comment 54. I don’t believe all such surgery is against the important counsel given by Elder Holland as quoted in comment 1.
13 Jun 2007 @ 14:02 | Permalink
…is it OK for me to answer the question you asked “everybody else”?
I don’t think there’s a need for the Prophet to give a particular piece of counsel just so it will look consistent in the eyes of men. What the Prophet really needs to do is give the counsel he believes is inspired of the Holy Ghost, regardless of what people think about it.
13 Jun 2007 @ 14:05 | Permalink
I think the church should clear up all the little gaps by giving a full account of the current interpretation of the WoW and of the ‘my body is a temple’ instructions.
Remove and ambiguity with these two issues and members can stop sweating the little stuff and move on to issues that matter.
13 Jun 2007 @ 14:30 | Permalink
Yes, ltbugaf, of course it is OK for you to answer the question addressed to everybody else. I didn’t mean to imply that you were excluded. Thank you for your answer.
Yes Rick, I wish the church would do that too (just wishful thinking again ltbugaf, not a sense of superior insight).
I haven’t read every talk on the subject of tattoos and earrings, but I’m wondering how much emphasis there really is on the “body is a temple” theme. I’ll have to check it out.
13 Jun 2007 @ 15:41 | Permalink
OK, I found enough “body is a temple” references. It seems to me that this is more an issue of aesthetics than an issue with body alteration in general. It seems the counsel is saying that tattoos and multiple peircings are basically ugly and in poor taste, and thus can be considered vandalism on our temples.
So then is plastic surgery only bad if the results are tacky? Is it OK to renovate the temple as long as you believe God would considered it to be in good taste? Hmmmmmm, something to ponder.
My impression so far is that body alteration is OK as long it’s not ugly.
13 Jun 2007 @ 16:31 | Permalink
I think God tells us what to do a lot more often than he tells us why. In fact, I think obedience without knowing why is sometimes a prerequisite to learning the reasons.
When I read Moses 5:5–10, I see an interesting pattern that I believe is often repeated in our lives. First commandment, then obedience, then understanding, then testimony. The commandment is in verse 5, the obedience in verses 5 and 6, the understanding (or knowledge, if you prefer) in verses 7-8, and the testimony (or spiritual knowledge, if you prefer) in verses 9-10.
In regard to this counsel, I think the idea of honoring the body as a temple is a correct teaching, but as nermal points out, it’s not obvious that leaving the temple undecorated is inherently more respectful than decorating it. But the perceived reasons aren’t what I rely on. I rely on the commandment. I’m not sure that President Hinckley and the other Apostles really know all of the reasons this guidance is given. But they do know it is given—that they’ve received a message through the Holy Ghost that they are to pass on to the membership of the Church. That’s enough for me. If I can’t see all the reasons, I’m not surprised, and I’m not too bothered either.
13 Jun 2007 @ 18:27 | Permalink
I don’t think I fully understand the problem rick is describing in comment 120. The counsel is very clear on what to do and what not to do, so it’s very easy to follow: Don’t drink coffee, tea or alcoholic beverages. Don’t use tobacco. Don’t get tattooed. Don’t get your bodies pierced except for women having their ears pierced once. Since this is all made so crystal clear and so easy to do, what’s causing people to “sweat the small stuff”? If they want to engage in lengthy and pointless speculation about the reasons for each of these commands, they choose to, but the Church’s leaders aren’t making them do so.
13 Jun 2007 @ 18:31 | Permalink
Nermal, just one more thing in answer to your second question in 117:
I think the Church is openly counseling against plastic surgery—not absolutely or categorically, but the counsel is definitely there and it’s definitely open, as you can see from the General Conference address quoted in comment 1.
13 Jun 2007 @ 18:34 | Permalink
That’s only half of the Word of Wisdom, ltbugaf? What about the other half? Do you think the counsel for the other half has been just as clear?
13 Jun 2007 @ 19:53 | Permalink
If you accept this to be true, then you also must accept the inspired interpretation that others make regarding the vague and inconsistent counsel we receive from the prophets and apostles.
Of course this becomes a problem since people tend to have different interpretations with very little tolerance for differing opinions.
One will say, “He is just giving his opinion” and another will say “The spirit told me that is now doctrine”.
Why not just say so to begin with? Why not be specific? Be clear and specific in your counsel. They use to do it all the time… and for good reason!
13 Jun 2007 @ 20:58 | Permalink
I believe, as do many members I’ve talked to, that the WoW interpretations are NOT clear.
Coke? Mountain Dew? Frozen Cappuccino? Non-alcoholic beer? Are these things ok?
How about second helpings of roast beef? Is that ok?
What about all of these thousands of foods not given mention in the WoW? What’s up with them?
Is caffeine the issue or is it the temperature of the drink.
There are speculations aplenty with members regarding the WoW, and precious little detail.
The same applies to ‘my body is a temple’.
If the problem is simply bad taste, does that mean poorly applied makeup is taboo?
Should armpit hair be outlawed in women?
If a single set of earrings is good taste for women, is a single set in men also ok? No. The church has been perfectly clear on that front, and if the same attention to detail was followed through in all these little meaningless (to me) issues, perhaps members would have more time to spend on the big issues; perfecting the saints and making the world a better place.
14 Jun 2007 @ 09:13 | Permalink
How about back hair in men?
I don’t wear earrings at all.
How about women who wear too much make-up? Yikes, there are many of them out there and many in the church. Or gaudy jewelry?
14 Jun 2007 @ 15:17 | Permalink
Which “inspired” interpretations would those be? What makes you call them inspired, and what makes you say I have to accept them?
16 Jun 2007 @ 19:54 | Permalink
Where is the vague counsel from Prophets and Apostles about these things? There isn’t any. It’s a realm of personal decision.
Ditto
It doesn’t matter. The authoritative interpretation of “hot drinks” is coffee and tea. It doesn’t matter whether caffeine is or isn’t an issue, or whether the temperature is an issue. We’ve been told what to do, not why.
None of which has anything to do with what the Prophets have told us to do. What they’ve told us to do is exceedingly clear. The fact that some people choose to engage in speculations about the reasons for their guidance, and that some people form personal opinions about other substances, doesn’t make their guidance unclear.
I think what you’re saying is that some members wish the Prophet were telling them how to decide issues on which he hasn’t spoken. That’s quite a different matter from saying he’s been unclear about the issues on which he has spoken.
16 Jun 2007 @ 20:02 | Permalink
Would you help me here by giving an example of vague or unclear counsel the Prophets have given about the other “half” of the Word of Wisdom?
16 Jun 2007 @ 20:05 | Permalink
By the way, nermalcat, I never quite met some of your questions head on, so let me do so now:
Yes, I agree that I was too harsh with endlessnegotiation. I allowed the hostility of his response to provoke me into an equally hostile reply. That was one of the reasons I tried to reform my answer with a somewhat better one, in comment 101.
Endlessnegotiation, I don’t know if you’re still reading, but you have my apology for being unkind.
16 Jun 2007 @ 20:41 | Permalink
ltbugaf, I honestly wonder sometimes if you and I are talking about the same church.
Your personal take on the way the church runs is so contrary to my experiences, I sometimes wonder if, rather than just being arbitrarily confrontational, you really are talking about a completely different church.
18 Jun 2007 @ 09:10 | Permalink
Rick, if you provide some examples of what you’re talking about, rather than pure generalizations, then I’ll have a basis on which to respond.
19 Jun 2007 @ 06:30 | Permalink
I have given you several specific examples.
Speculation on what the WoW does and does not cover, citations about how wards operate, the apparent lack of discord within the membership, all these things are apparent to me in the LDS community I have been witness to, but for some reason all the concepts don’t ring true for you.
It really does seem odd, sometimes.
19 Jun 2007 @ 08:30 | Permalink
As to the Word of Wisdom issues, I don’t see what’s unclear: There’s a list of definite instructions about what not to do. The rest is left to the discretion and individual judgment of members. The fact that some things are left to individuals to decide for themselves doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the instructions are unclear or ambiguous. Telling someone, “Don’t do X, Y or Z, and use your own judgment with regard to A, B and C” is not ambiguous or unclear.
Perhaps some members would find it easier to have everything spelled out for them rather than be required to use their own brains and their own souls in making decisions. I agree that it would be easier, but that doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the Prophet should spell everything out for them. The only thing a Prophet should do is what the Lord tells him to do. So far, He hasn’t told the Prophet to resolve every little question that any member can ever pose. As far as I can tell, He wants us to use our own noggins.
As to “how wards operate” or the “apparent lack of discord within the membership,” if you see something happening in your ward, maybe you should consider the possibility that it’s not common to the everyone in the Church, and refrain from attributing such characteristics to the Church as a whole unless you have some reasonable basis on which to do so.
19 Jun 2007 @ 19:01 | Permalink
That clearly isn’t what rick is talking about.
We have a number of issues that are vague regarding the word of wisdom that shouldn’t be. And even the president of the church has sent conflicting messages.
Let’s take a single example. Caffinated soft drinks.
I’m sure you’re aware that as the doctrine is clearly taught and explained, we are to abstain from Coffee, Tea.. etc… But, specifically regarding these two, members and non-members of the church have tried for decades to rationalize “Why” these two are singled out. The scriptures don’t give us why. Neither has the Lord through any direct revelation on the matter. These are simply the interpretation given by Hyrum on what is meant by Hot Drinks.
Over time, this rationalization has lead to an assumed reason… “It must be the caffeine!” some dimwit said. And since that moment in time, it is a widely held belief that anything with caffeine is guilty by association and also excluded from the word of wisdom… except chocolate, because it tastes soooooo good.
Now, you and I both know that we can eat as much chocolate and drink as much pepsi or jolt as we like and it will never stop us from getting a temple recommend. So clearly it isn’t against the word of wisdom. But we teach this in our sacrament meeting. We tell our friends this. We tattle-tale on missionaries to the mission president when we see them drinking a coke on a hot day (it happened to many of my companions on my mission). The entire world believes it’s one of our doctrines… so gues what… it is!!!
Church leaders have been questioned about this many times and had many chances to clear up the confusion. But when asked by Larry King about the word of wisdom, president Hinkley said “Sure” when asked if members should stay away from cola drinks.
He could have said “it’s not part of our doctrine, but they really aren’t good for you”. But he didn’t When Larry listed off Coffee, Tea, Drugs, Tobacco, Alcohol, and Cola Drinks, the prophet included them all in the list of Don’ts.
And this is one single example. And it confuses people. Maybe not you and me. But any reasonable person can see the mixed message it sends. Can’t you?
There are others, as rick mentioned above. There are mixed messages about what we should do to our bodies and what we shouldn’t. And there are pleanty of opportuinities to clarify the confusion. They just don’t.
19 Jun 2007 @ 21:28 | Permalink
19 Jun 2007 @ 22:20 | Permalink
It would be a simple issue to sort out what the WoW really means for all members.
If leaders can single out the number of earrings one must wear, they can certainly determine in frappacinos are okay. They’re both equally trivial.
20 Jun 2007 @ 11:38 | Permalink
Yes, the leaders could spell out every detail of life if they wanted to, and make things easier for everyone. There are two reasons I can think of not to do so: First, we need to exercise our own agency. Second, they’re trying to act as the Lord would have them do, and He hasn’t directed them to fill in those details. I find it amazing that you want the Church to dictate each detail of what members may or may not do; I would have expected the opposite.
20 Jun 2007 @ 12:28 | Permalink
Then why all the direction on earrings? I understand it’s a pressing manner, critically important to society, but why not go with big notions or detailed notions and stop wading from one pool into the other.
…and you know this, how?
I expect consistency from what is purportedly the One True Church and its leadership.
20 Jun 2007 @ 13:26 | Permalink
Forget it rick… he’ll never make the connection.
20 Jun 2007 @ 13:48 | Permalink
I have no idea why. Neither do you. I doubt very much that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve know all of the reasons for this guidance. They act under the guidance of the Spirit. Once again, we’ve been told what to do without being given all the reasons. That’s nothing new—true Prophets do it all the time.
Because if He had, they would have done so.
I don’t think it’s inconsistent for a Prophet to declare what the Lord has led him to declare, and not to declare what the Lord has not told him to declare.
21 Jun 2007 @ 15:54 | Permalink
So God cares about earrings.
Wow. That seems just about right.
With all the pain suffering and confusion in this world, President Hinckley get revelations about earrings.
That sounds about right.
Keep the important things in the forefront.
21 Jun 2007 @ 21:58 | Permalink
Yeah, I have to disagree with JM about his comments on cola. I have never heard any preaching against Cola in church. I knew a Young Woman’s pres. in one of my old wards that was freaky about it, but everyone thought she was off base. They serve Coke and Mountain Dew at baptisms in The United Arab Emerites without even thinking twice about it (direct observation). I think this is only a big deal in certain wards in certain cities and that’s it. I agree with Ltbugaf that this is not to be considered doctrinal, even if Pres. Hinkley wasn’t clear on that during an interview.
This reminds me of the whole white shirt thing too. I, for one, had never even heard of it until I started reading our thoughts. Is it an Albertan thing? My husband has been wearing blue shirts, striped shirts and argyle shirts to church for years, and nobody has ever commented, nor has he ever felt out of place in the many wards we have been in. Last Sunday I made an effort to look around and notice several men wearing green or blue shirts. Of course the woman who came up to say the closing prayer was wearing pants, and nobody seemed to care about that either, which I think is a very nice thing about my ward.
21 Jun 2007 @ 23:49 | Permalink
Also Rick, it’s true that it would be very nice if the leadership were more consistent about these issues. Things certainly would go more smoothly. I can see your point.
On the other hand, I think the blame for the contention should be put on the membership. If something hasn’t been clearly specified as sinful, one can find ways to deal with it and make their own decisions, while minding their own business.
The membership should be smart enough to know that other things are much more important, otherwise it’s their own fault for having their own priorities out of whack.
22 Jun 2007 @ 00:09 | Permalink
I’m willing to concede that my sample may be too small. But this has been my experience in the church (regarding the WOW and cola thing). As missionaries in the Nevada Las Vegas Mission, we were hammered with it. It’s also been my experience in Calgary and Lethbridge.
Here’s hoping that this notion is restricted to these areas only.
22 Jun 2007 @ 07:21 | Permalink
On the one hand, according to you, God doesn’t exist and therefore can’t care about anything. If that’s taken to be true, as you say it is, then any talk about what He cares about and what He doesn’t care about is completely meaningless.
If, on the other hand, God does exist, and He has more knowledge, wisdom and understanding than you, then why do you presume that His priorities have to be the same as yours?
I believe He cares about both big things and small. I don’t know why it’s unreasonable to believe He cares about small things. Luke 12:6–7.
22 Jun 2007 @ 13:12 | Permalink
JM, I also hope the cola notion is not so rampant among church members. But I do believe your story since our YW pres. from Omaha was totally freaked out when one of the YW bought a coke at a mutual activity. She acted like the girl had just bought a beer, and even went so far as to literally steal the Coke when the girl wasn’t looking. I was totally blown away because in my mind, sneakliy taking something that belongs to somebody else is a lot worse than drinking a coke. Myself, along with all of the other leaders were just quietly shaking our heads.
I guess I did hear of a Bishop in CA who started denying temple recs for drinking Coke for a while. I think he got instructed to quit doing that though.
Anyhow, these are the only two incidences that I have encountered, so I figured there were just a few over-zealous whackos out there who freaked about Cola. I certainly have never heard it preached about in a church meeting before, thank goodness. There are weirdos who will teach in YM/YW that their first kiss should not be until they are at the alter! There are people who will preach that nobody should date AT ALL until they are 18 years old. I heard a woman teach in RS that we should never wear denim skirts or sandals with bare toes to church. I guess I just equate the Coke freaks with the rest of these unusual people and can’t understand why anybody would take it seriously.
22 Jun 2007 @ 15:23 | Permalink
“…why do you presume that His priorities have to be the same as yours?”
Because my priorities are in order, and the nonsense about multiple earrings is not.
That quote from Luke is metaphorical and in no way is applicable to the topic at hand.
22 Jun 2007 @ 16:31 | Permalink
…and that is what’s called hubris. The attitude that says, “I’m right, God’s wrong. If you can’t see that, you’re stupid.”
…and you know this because…?
Jesus says God is mindful of every little thing: Sparrows, hairs on your head. If you choose to believe that has nothing to do with the question of whether God cares about small matters, then I can’t agree with you.
22 Jun 2007 @ 20:22 | Permalink
nermalcat said: “I heard a woman teach in RS that we should never wear denim skirts or sandals with bare toes to church.”
At what point do you think there should be rules and regulations as to what women can and cannot wear? For example, are $1 flip flops ok to wear in the chapel?
nermalcat said: “I have never heard any preaching against Cola in church.”
I have heard much preaching against cola drinks from the pulpit and much preaching that one is not worthy to hold a temple recommend if they drink cola drinks. That was a different time and a different prophet so the rules for eternal salvation were different back then. I have seen white shirts being enforced to perform PH duties within the last year. I have seen where PH leaders are required to wear a white shirt and suit anytime they are at the church building also within the last year.
Every male must look like a missionary is the standard to be judged by. Should men have rules as to what they wear while women can wear $1 flip flops with denim shirts.
22 Jun 2007 @ 20:53 | Permalink
MeAgain:
Whatever my opinion is on this, I certainly don’t have the right to get up and preach my opinion in church and pass it off as a church teaching. Nor does anybody else.
Both men and women should be frequently encouraged to put forth their best efforts to look as nice and respectful as they can for church. Then they should govern themselves and mind their own business. This opinion of mine is based on a distinct absence of any further instruction on this issue from a prophet or apostle. So why start making up rules?
There is no evidence that avoiding denim skirts and flip flops is anything other than the opinions of individual members. Ditto for Coke.
As for what “rules” should be preached in church; if you can’t find it in a lesson manuel, the scriptures or at least in any official writings or talks from a prophet or apostle at all, then it’s totally innapropriate. This is not just my opinion, in fact, I believe this is actually church policy on what is to be taught at church.
Coke, white shirts, denim skirts and flip flops are all topics brought up by overzealous people with their own personal opinions. If you think I am wrong, show me the evidence to the contrary! It’s a waste of everybody’s time when the meeting is supposed to be devoted to other things.
I maintain that I have never heard cola preached against in church (and certainly NOT in ANY conference talk). I have lived in various wards in Alberta and in five different states. Same goes for white shirts.
The day I hear anybody preach againt Cola in church is the day I will fall off my chair in disbelief. I’m not saying I don’t believe you guys, it’s just that I so totally disagree with anybody thinking they have the right to do that!
22 Jun 2007 @ 23:43 | Permalink
Not important, but I’m just wondering….
Is MeAgain the latest iteration of Bill/George/Pewman/Pewsitter?
Don’t have to answer if you don’t want.
25 Jun 2007 @ 21:59 | Permalink
Do you REALLY think that “any God” is going to care how much someone paid for their flipflops? Or what they have on their feet for that matter? If they have more than one earing, or if they drink coke (or pepsi)coffee, wine, what have you, or have a tattoo, or a mohawk,or what they wear at all. That is all just plain ridiculous and petty. There are wars and tsunami’s and far bigger issues going on, and God is worried about what is on my feet at church, and how many holes in my ears… pathetic.
26 Jun 2007 @ 10:51 | Permalink
So, Dar, you’re positive that God cares only about the things you think are important, and not about the things you think are unimportant. But how do you know that?
I’d be interested to know your take on what Jesus said in Luke 12:6–7, which I referred to above. I think it indicates that God cares about all kinds of small matters. What do you think?
26 Jun 2007 @ 11:26 | Permalink
Well where do I start….first of all, I would not, nor have I ever done anything because someone said it was good or bad.
I don’t really believe that there is a “God”. However, many people choose to worship their gods or supreme being, or whatever brings them a sense of peace and belonging, and meaning to life. All good.
I believe that there is life all around us, and that we all decide our destinies. I think that we have to first become aware of our jealousy, hatred, pride, anger, greed, fears, and all things that cause selfish thinking. Once we are aware, we can look for peace in the world, and become more mindful and compassionate.
That all said, I don’t believe that we need someone else dictating what is right and wrong, or what is good and bad. We can all decide that for ourselves, we all know when we feel at peace with what we are doing. We shouldn’t do things because we are going to be rewarded (in heaven) or because someone tells you to. It should be because it is the right thing for you.
With all that…Yes, I still do not think that your God was referring to how much your flip flops cost, or what you do to your body. I think it just means that the God you choose to believe in, Loves everyone, and all of you, whether you have on a white shirt, flip flops, big stretched out holes in your ears, tattoos, whatever.
my thoughts, and only because you asked so nicely.
26 Jun 2007 @ 14:10 | Permalink
That’s an interesting interpretation, ltbugaf. All I think that scripture means is that we are more important to God than birds are.
26 Jun 2007 @ 15:08 | Permalink
Kim, I agree that it means that, but I think it supports the other idea, too.
26 Jun 2007 @ 19:38 | Permalink
Well, that totally threw me for a loop. I was very mistaken about the status of your beliefs.
26 Jun 2007 @ 19:40 | Permalink
To clarify, Kim, I think Christ is saying both things in that scripture. First he says that God is mindful of every sparrow, then he says that since that’s the case—since he doesn’t forget the least thing, even a sparrow—we should be confident that he also cares about us.
27 Jun 2007 @ 10:25 | Permalink
Well, I’ll tell you this Dar, I think that the person with tattoos and earrings who is kind and generous and helpful is going to be better off in the herefter than the Mormon with no earrings or tattoos who is not as kind or generous or helpful. It’s a matter of priorities, really.
I can’t assume that God doesn’t care at all about tattoos and earrings but I DO assume that tattoos and earrings have got to be pretty low priority compared to all the other concerns God must have, such as whether or not a person is kind, generous and helpful etc.
I agree that surely God would not condemn a good person just because of earrings and tattoos. I see this counsel (not commandment)as more of a parental advice type of scenerio than as a rigid rule for which you will be eternally punished for breaking.
28 Jun 2007 @ 16:21 | Permalink
Just thought I’d add some interesting links for your inspection.
Note the #1 city ranked in all these search criteria.
2 City for this one
http://www.google.com/trends?q=tummy tuck
3 City for this one
http://www.google.com/trends?q=liposuction
4 Jul 2007 @ 12:55 | Permalink
If you break some of them down to show just the United States, several of them will show Utah as the top state in the searches as well. Of course, that illustrates level of interest, not actual proportion of procedures.
4 Jul 2007 @ 13:03 | Permalink
So it just indicates that the good people of Utah are thinking about breast augmentations, not actually getting them.
Hmmm…
To me it seems pretty odd that people would be looking up all this information but not actually interested in getting the procedures done.
5 Jul 2007 @ 08:58 | Permalink
There is no doubt that all this things make you look more beautiful but what are the possible helth risks involved?
20 Mar 2008 @ 16:21 | Permalink
Re: Comment 164–I did as suggested and looked at the links, which, as Kim points out, are merely indications of where Internet searches are originating and have little or nothing to do with where people are getting plastic surgery. Salt Lake City shows on one of the lists. Nothing in Utah, or any other city known for having lots of Mormons, even appears on any of the others.
Gosh, how overwhelming.
20 Mar 2008 @ 21:49 | Permalink
It’s too bad you waited 8 months to view the links, ltbugaf. But it does show two things. SLC searches seem to be pretty consistent when it comes to searches of “breast augmentation”, but not when it comes to other searches.
21 Mar 2008 @ 08:21 | Permalink
Any idea why there was an anomalous spike in the searches originating in Salt Lake City? And were they, in fact originating there, or merely being processed by ISP servers there?
And is there any reason at all to reach a conclusion about plastic surgery among Latter-day Saints based on evidence so flimsy, attenuated and inconsistent?
21 Mar 2008 @ 22:48 | Permalink
Rick,
I don’t necessarily feel that breast augmentation surgery is harming the temple of God or contributing towards being a poor witness. As with anything else, it can be done in a tasteful manner — and also a not so tasteful manner), so to lump all circumstances together would be wrong in my opinion.
-Jen
13 Apr 2008 @ 14:33 | Permalink
“tasteful” – what delightful ambiguity arrives when we use words like tasteful…
13 Apr 2008 @ 23:39 | Permalink
Personally I think moderation in all things is good. And I really doubt Church leaders are implying that everything that they don’t specifically mention is “okay”…a few examples from the category should get the general idea across. Plus doing it that way leaves room for exceptional circumstances that a blanket ban would miss.
29 May 2008 @ 12:06 | Permalink
“And I really doubt Church leaders are implying that everything that they don’t specifically mention is “okay”"
So how precisely does one determine that a cold frappacino is worse than a cup of coffee?
Which is worse, an extra earring or a nipple piercing?
The problem is, as I see it, is that when you start splitting hairs about cosmetic choices, you have to start defining which hairs are to be split and which are not.
29 May 2008 @ 12:23 | Permalink
They have. They’ve said exactly what they ask the members of the Church to do, and demanded no more. So what’s the problem? Are you yet again trying to say out of one side of your mouth that Church leaders dictate the details of people’s lives too much and say out of the other side that they have an obligation to dictate more details?
Why should anyone care? I don’t. I just avoid both and don’t waste my time on questions as frivolous and meaningless as the ones you pose here.
31 May 2008 @ 00:30 | Permalink
The easy answer is to just avoid everything isn’t it?
Just avoid anything that even allows for the appearance of indiscretion.
It’s a pity that that leads to such a boring (paranoid) life, though.
1 Jun 2008 @ 13:50 | Permalink
Obviously you’re going too far again, as you already know. The answer—which is sometimes not easy at all—is to avoid those things that the Lord’s servants have counseled me to avoid.
You’re asking—with an apparent sense tht it’s a matter of great importance—which of two bad things is worse. I don’t care. I know they’re both to be avoided because I’ve received specific direction to do so. I can’t see why you conclude that my life is duller or paranoid (honestly now, paranoid?) just because as I make choices about what to do and what not to do, I choose to follow the advice of some others.
14 Jun 2008 @ 22:20 | Permalink
“The answer—which is sometimes not easy at all—is to avoid those things that the Lord’s servants have counseled me to avoid.”
Which was precisely my point.
There is no easy proclamation by which the organization specifies which items are kosher and which are verboten.
Exactly the same situation as when the prophet is speaking as a man versus speaking as a prophet.
These things are hard, and vague, and filled with speculation.
15 Jun 2008 @ 15:51 | Permalink
Nonsense. It’s as easy as falling off a log to know that I shouldn’t smoke, that I shouldn’t drink alcohol, that I shouldn’t engage in sex outside of marriage, that I shouldn’t view pornography, that I shouldn’t have myself tattooed, and so on and so on. The Church’s leaders have made those things crystal clear. I can’t begin to imagine how they could have been any clearer–can you?
You’ve chosen to twist my meaning when I say it’s not always easy to follow their counsel. It’s not hard to understand their counsel; it’s just sometimes hard to follow it. That’s because we’re human beings, subject to temptation. Thus, although I know what I should do as clearly as I know when the sun is shining in the sky, I don’t always find it easy to do. It’s the obedience that can pose a challenge, not the understanding.
16 Jun 2008 @ 22:45 | Permalink
So decaf coffee is good or bad?
Body piercing is…
Bed tanning is…
Breast augmentation is…
Crystal clear? Clear as mud, maybe.
17 Jun 2008 @ 08:25 | Permalink
Generally issues of “vanity” that cause permanent changes or require surgical alterations to the body, such as breast augmentation surgery, liposuction, should be withheld from adolescents. Only when one achieves maturity of mind and body, should they undergo those changes.
17 Jun 2008 @ 21:30 | Permalink
“Only when one achieves maturity of mind and body…”
And who gets to be the judge of maturity?
Ask any teen. I will almost guarantee you that they say that they think they are mature.
Ask any adult. I will almost guarantee you that they say that they think they are mature.
Can either of the above possibly be true? Not likely.
18 Jun 2008 @ 08:47 | Permalink
So once again, let me try to understand your position: Are you saying that the right thing for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to do is try to imagine every possible choice that may ever confront one of its members and dictate the decision that should be made? Because that seems to be what you’re saying—that the Church’s leaders should leave no choices or decisions up to the individuals they lead.
What’s your position, rick? Do you want the Church to be more controlling, or less?
28 Jun 2008 @ 22:38 | Permalink
If members are to be held accountable for the actions they take, then yes, the church should provide more information to assist the members in determining precisely what is ok and what is not.
If for not other reason than to free up the borderline activities that people may wish to participate in.
30 Jun 2008 @ 15:31 | Permalink
And you’re asking me to believe that members are going to be “held accountable”–that is, their membership status is going to be in jeopardy (?)–if they have their breasts operated on or lie in a tanning bed?
2 Jul 2008 @ 22:03 | Permalink
Incidentally, here are your answers:
Bad. They’ve been telling us with no ambiguity for more than a century that coffee is coffee, and the Word of Wisdom asks us not to drink it.
Bad. Did you somehow miss that message? I suggest the following link as one of many available references on that point: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b4f935c4ceeae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
Up to the individual. If you actually know of someone who’s being “held accountable” by the hierarchy of the Church for doing this, I’d be somewhat interested and greatly surprised.
Up to the individual, although there is some general counsel on this point from Elder Holland, which you’ve already seen, quoted above. Do you know someone who’s being “held accountable” by the Church because she had a breast augmentation?
2 Jul 2008 @ 22:14 | Permalink
“their membership status is going to be in jeopardy”
That’s only one of many ways one can be held accountable.
If you’re convinced that the rules have been properly enunciated then fine. I don’t think they have been.
3 Jul 2008 @ 08:37 | Permalink
So how are these people who use tanning beds or have elective surgery being “held accountable” by the Church?
3 Jul 2008 @ 23:33 | Permalink
My cousin used to be a regular user of tanning beds (I don’t think she still uses it as much, but she’s a busy mother now) and no one ever commented on it..never mind made her “accountable” for it. I am not a great fan of them, but there isn’t anything wrong with them on a religious standpoint.
4 Jul 2008 @ 10:22 | Permalink
“there isn’t anything wrong with them on a religious standpoint.”
How precisely do you know that for certain?
“So how are these people who use tanning beds or have elective surgery being ‘held accountable’ by the Church?”
Doesn’t God hold everyone accountable for their actions? Is he not the head of the LDS church?
You’ll note I never said people were being held accountable, I said if they were to be held accountable – but you probably already knew that. This exercise does begin to grow tiresome.
5 Jul 2008 @ 22:54 | Permalink
Uh….well, ok I am guessing, but no one has said so at church, from Bishops to Stake Presidency to General presidency. I have to admit that I find it strange you seem to think there is a chance they are. But, whatever.
Rick, it seems like you are nitpicking, What makes you think tanning beds are verboten by the church leadership?
6 Jul 2008 @ 06:15 | Permalink
I don’t know if they are, and no one else does either. That would be my point. If you think I’m nit picking what does that say about the amount of informal speculation inside the church between members who a re just winging it because they’re not sure what is and is not forbidden?
I find it odd that a henna tattoo is not cool and tanning beds would be. But the point is that my opinion doesn’t matter. There should be direction from the people making the rules instead of off the cuff arbitrary decisions made by local church authorities.
6 Jul 2008 @ 12:47 | Permalink
You would have to ask them that.
Well when you tan you bring out natural pigment in the skin, tattooing puts ink IN the skin.
And who said henna tattoos aren’t fine. Personally I like them.
6 Jul 2008 @ 12:54 | Permalink
“who said henna tattoos aren’t fine”
More speculation from a member to whom I talked.
Tattoos are not permanent, and what makes them worse than breast implants?
6 Jul 2008 @ 12:56 | Permalink
One member does not a policy make, in spite of what some people think. I never said tattoos are permanent nor that they are worse of better than breast implants. Write the First Presidency if this is such an important issue to you.
6 Jul 2008 @ 14:09 | Permalink
It’s not super important to me, I just find it odd that members don’t know any better than I do.
6 Jul 2008 @ 14:21 | Permalink
Why should we? I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
6 Jul 2008 @ 14:32 | Permalink
Generally, lists of do-nots are explicit (i.e. the 10 commandments).
Are you not worried that your cousin may be doing something against God if she tans?
6 Jul 2008 @ 15:14 | Permalink
No. That’s between her and the Lord (and personally I don’t think He cared about her tanning). What is this with tanning? Why do you think tanning is against Church policy or the Lord’s will? As I said, if one person said it, it doesn’t make it truth. Sometimes local leaders will take personal opinion and implement them. Sometimes it’s light and harmless, other times maybe not so much. I knew one SP who considered eating too much chocolate enough to keep someone from getting their temple recommend. But that wasn’t church policy and he was incorrect in that.
There is also personal discernment and we don’t need to be commanded in all things.
Besides that, excess earrings, tattoos and clothing aren’t enough to get someone disfellowshipped anyway.
6 Jul 2008 @ 15:19 | Permalink
So you can envision a bishop with a tattoo and earrings? I can’t. Not in the LDS church. It’s either a big deal or it’s not. If it’s a big deal, people should be informed explicitly of what is and is not allowed.
6 Jul 2008 @ 17:41 | Permalink
Actually I knew a Bishop who had a tattoo. He didn’t show it off as Bishop. He was a former drug dealer, though, which could or could not be why he had the tattoo.
We are told that tattoos and extra earrings are not a good idea. When it comes to implants or tanning I have never heard.
We get the information we need and expected to use our noggins for the rest. It’s not really hard.
6 Jul 2008 @ 18:23 | Permalink
Okay….but there are tasteful tattoos and earings.
I just think that it seems a bit silly to say that you can’t alter your body in one way…but, it is okay to alter your body in another way. Especially when some ways are for vanity sake.
I personally think that everything is up to the individual and that we shouldn’t have to be told what to do/ not do.
6 Jul 2008 @ 19:35 | Permalink
And since they are explicitly informed not to have earrings or tattoos, what’s the problem?
7 Jul 2008 @ 11:07 | Permalink
So ltbugaf, can you show me where the subject of tanning is explicitly discussed? Mary’s cousin’s soul may be in danger.
7 Jul 2008 @ 12:25 | Permalink
Judge not that ye be judged!
10 Aug 2008 @ 10:24 | Permalink
That is the problem with Mormons. They are all worried about what everyone else around them is doing. Why don’t they worry about their own salvation and work on themselves rather than pointing a finger at everyone they believe isn’t walking the srtaight and narrow perfectly! You can sit hear and read all this garbage of people takes on what they translate the Prophets words to mean, but when it comes down to it just do what you feel is right in your own heart after a sincere pray to our Heavenly Father. Some may say plastic surgery is defiling your body or the temple that Heavenly Fahter gave you, but if that is true, people who are obese because thay over eat and don’t exercise and care for they bodies are doing the same thing, they are not caring for their temples that Heavenly Fahter gave them. All I can say is quit pointing your fingers and offending people! Work on your self, that is why we are here. To perfect ourselves so we may live again with our Heavenly Father. Let him be the judge!
10 Aug 2008 @ 10:35 | Permalink
Ah ok…we are all worried about what people around us are doing? Every single one? Not this ‘mormon’.
You might want to read the conversation, not a person here is ‘judging’ what anyone does, but trying to clarify what church leadership has stated.
10 Aug 2008 @ 13:46 | Permalink