A bridge too far?

[Indy Coug]

So when is it spiritually justified to set aside the counsel of the brethren because in your view it is "silly" or "outmoded" or whatever? There are plenty of things I find in the church that I don't particularly like, but just because I don't agree with it or think it has any legitimate spiritual merit doesn't mean I feel completely justified in blowing it off.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some here are a law unto themselves. It's not so much the question that has been asked along the lines of "do we have to do EVERYTHING the church leadership says" as it is the attitudes expressed and the underlying contempt in some of those responses.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So when is it spiritually justified to set aside the counsel of the brethren because in your view it is "silly" or "outmoded" or whatever? There are plenty of things I find in the church that I don't particularly like, but just because I don't agree with it or think it has any legitimate spiritual merit doesn't mean I feel completely justified in blowing it off.

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some here are a law unto themselves. It's not so much the question that has been asked along the lines of "do we have to do EVERYTHING the church leadership says" as it is the attitudes expressed and the underlying contempt in some of those responses.

Myself I would never set aside counsel of the brethern as silly or outmoded. That is out of the respect I have for them. I also believe they are the ones I sustain to give counsel to the church, not me.

Therefor I don't think that any counsel they give, I should be given the opportunity to express to the body of the church my opposition to said counsel. I would never express some of the feelings I have from the pulpit that I express here. Not because I don't believe them, but because that (church facilities) is not the forum that is available to me to express how I feel. Quite frankly I let most things go even in discussions in Priesthood meeting. I do however from those discussion determine which members in the class I have no desire to play golf with.

Now, have I ever used the term silly or outmoded. Probably. If I get called on it I won't be offended.

[Indy Coug]

'The first and great commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself'

Perhaps, just perhaps, part of loving thyself is not puncturing your body full of holes and tatooing it. As such, Pres. Hinckley's counsel is merely an extension of Romans 13:10-11.

I'm a firm believer that it is not meet that we be commanded in all things, and I honestly think the church doesn't do that. So for the handful of things that we are either commanded or counseled to do or not to do, we shouldn't necessarily toss aside the stuff we find to be silly cultural artifacts.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

In other words, we don't think God will judge us for how closely we followed every piece of counsel given by his chosen priesthood administrators, but rather how closely we love and serve our fellow man.

I'm gonna assume you believe that Hinckley would agree with, at the very least, the last half of that statement.

If so, why do you think he said it? Out of a need to control LDS youth?

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Solon

Even the CIA is okay with facial hair.
http://media.militaryphotos.net/phot...SF_Cowboy2.jpg

We have a visitor here from IBM. Today he is wearing a red polo shirt.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm gonna assume you believe that Hinckley would agree with, at the very least, the last half of that statement.

If so, why do you think he said it? Out of a need to control LDS youth?

One observation that Adam posted seems indubitably true, we have become, since Harold B. Lee, a noted fundamentalist, a Church of correlation.

Correlation is one of conformity and control. The atmosphere created by it is almost self-sustaining.

From a brand recognition, it is important.

The leaders like a clean look. It's what they are comfortable with, and they would like to maintain a distinctive brandmark.

Principally, I have no problem with that, but I wouldn't equate "morality" with a lack of Polynesian tattoos, or African piercings.

Priesthood administrators operate the corporate organizations of the Church, as is their duty. Sometimes they make decisions which aren't absolute but are practical. Much of their counsel is practical.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Please explain for me how putting two holes in your ears is loving your body, but putting three (the belly ring) is "puncturing your body full of holes" in some evil or unholy way?

Can't you see how silly it is to draw this line? I can respect the decision to not pierce at all--the body is a temple and all that--but allowing 2 piercings and denying any more is clearly cultural and not doctrinal. Clearly.

WHAT we are asked to do is largely irrelevant. What we do in response to what we are asked to do is highly relevant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

Exactly. IBM has changed, and when Elder Bednar is the prophet, dress standards will change significantly. I promise you that when Walter Wriston shows up at IBM board of director's meetings, he is wearing his suit with his short cropped hair.

I dunno, Elder Bednar is hard core. He instituted the BYU Idaho rules of no capris for women, because they are so sinful.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

'The first and great commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself'.

I thought "loving yourself" referred to what people do late at night when they can't find a partner.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I dunno, Elder Bednar is hard core. He instituted the BYU Idaho rules of no capris for women, because they are so sinful.

Is that true? No capris at The-College-Formerly-Known-As-Ricks?

Amazing.

I suppose the next step is to prohibit women from wearing pants at all.