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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
“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
While, not specifically Utah, here is one source regarding regional statistics on breast surgery.
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.
“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!
Hey, is anyone else here reminded of the Breakfast Club? “Just answer the questionn, Clair!”
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.
Sorry, that should have been “…why I don’t believe we should follow…”
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”.
How could it be a personal observation when there was no opportunity to make such an observation?
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?
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
Which “inspired” interpretations would those be? What makes you call them inspired, and what makes you say I have to accept them?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, it is clear, just as I said.
Which doesn’t make the instructions of their leaders unclear.
Exactly! That’s why the speculation some members engage in isn’t really very useful—again, not the fault of the leaders who are teaching clearly.
Of course, it’s more than that: It’s also the interpretation accepted, confirmed, proclaimed and enforced by the united voice and action of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
Unless, in your own judgment, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Ghost, you believe the teachings of the Word of Wisdom mean you should not do generally foolish things to your body such as overindulgence in chocolate or caffeine.
There you go again with that “we.” Must rein in careless use of pronouns! If some people teach this in sacrament meetins, they shouldn’t. They ought to stop. Sacrament meetings are for the teaching of doctrines—teaching the gospel, not one’s own speculative opinions.
Ditto.
Wrong. There are plenty of people who know better.
Wrong again. Having other people think the Church teaches something doesn’t make it doctrine. For a far better statement of what constitutes doctrine, I refer you yet again to the Church’s own statement on the matter:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Significant numbers of people believe that we preach polygamy. According to your standard, that must be the truth. Again, ridiculous on its face.
And why shouldn’t they? If Larry had asked whether members “should” stay away from jungle gyms, what would be the answer? Those things have caused a lot of injuries. I don’t think a casual “sure” in this context amounts to much more than a “sure, why not?” You may disagree.
Or, he could have, quite sensibly, decided not to go into that level of detail and nuance under the circumstances.
Anyway, I do think some people are confused about what they should or shouldn’t do, but I think that’s different from being confused about what the Word of Wisdom actually requires.
There is some merit to what you’ve pointed out in the casual comments made by President Hinckley. But those aren’t what I would call “teachings” or “counsel,” and I think people are being confused more by their own speculations than by the Prophet.
At any rate, my thoughts about what the Prophet “should” do are already stated in comment 119.
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.
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.
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.
Forget it rick… he’ll never make the connection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.