![]() |
Quote:
|
Along the lines of temple recommends, etc., I guess we need an understanding of what it means to sustain the prophet and the other authorities of the church.
|
Quote:
|
I would take anything said by one of the brethren acting in their capacity as general authorities very seriously. If they are teaching an action or behavior, (e.g., don't wear earrings), I try to understand the principle behind that action or behavior (e.g., the body is sacred, and to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect), and try to live my live in accordance with that principle. If an action or behavior of mine conflicts with prescriptions of the brethren, I try to stop and ask myself if I am living in accordance with the principle taught, and make what changes are necessary. In the above example, Paul may have been referring to fornication as a defiling practice, and not necessarily commenting on earrings or tattoos, but I nevertheless don't feel that tattoos or piercings would be in harmony with the principle of the sanctity of the body.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Some of the other questions leave a lot more room for interpretation. |
Quote:
In general, I don't think it's Hinckley, or anyone else's business what I look like, within generally accepted social boundaries. "Counsel" is fine - except that many LDS feel that "counsel" is "command." I find the LDS church's "counsel" on appearance oppressive, meddling, and controlling - but that's just me. It's ethnocentric to expect a so-called worldwide church to conform to certain standards - especially dress and grooming standards - relevant to the modern US. |
Quote:
So how far does that go? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.