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?
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:
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…
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.
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
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.
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?
I think endlessnegotiation and I are using the term “test of faith” in a very different sense.
Except for the tans that come from spray-on products which don’t use UV rays.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Perhaps it would help if you pointed out to me where you think I’ve done this.
“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.
I’m very sorry to hear that. I hope you’ll soon be feeling well enough to think clearly and write meaningfully.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Which, of course, I have not done.
Can you describe this loophole and how it functions?
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.
Oh, drat, there goes my proofreading again: that’s “…need to have a care about…” in the last paragraph.
Yes, I have some ear hairs that I’d just as soon leave in the grave. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, done, Alison! I hope rick will answer your question.
…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
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.
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.
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.
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.”
And who are you to make such demands?
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?
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.
I’ve been wondering what it is you’ve seen in Utah that communicates a strong acceptance or endorsement of breast enhancement.
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.
Itbugaf,
Perhaps they are and you’re too myopic to see them?
To see what?
“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.
Who were they? How did you come by the knowledge that they’d had the surgery?
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.