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?
“…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.
…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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
That’s an interesting interpretation, ltbugaf. All I think that scripture means is that we are more important to God than birds are.
Kim, I agree that it means that, but I think it supports the other idea, too.
Well, that totally threw me for a loop. I was very mistaken about the status of your beliefs.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
There is no doubt that all this things make you look more beautiful but what are the possible helth risks involved?
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.
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.
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?
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
“tasteful” – what delightful ambiguity arrives when we use words like tasteful…
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
So decaf coffee is good or bad?
Body piercing is…
Bed tanning is…
Breast augmentation is…
Crystal clear? Clear as mud, maybe.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
“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.
So how are these people who use tanning beds or have elective surgery being “held accountable” by the Church?
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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.
“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?
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.
It’s not super important to me, I just find it odd that members don’t know any better than I do.
Why should we? I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.
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?
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.
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.