A bridge too far?

[Tex]

Last week's "Would God do that?" thread, our priesthood lesson on obedience yesterday, and today's thread on white shirts got me thinking.

We've discussed all the cataclysmic commands that God could possibly ever give (go slaughter the Amalekites, give your wife to the prophet, go take a slave, etc.), and tried to find our own personal line in the sand.

I'm curious ... what about the other direction? How many of you believe that prophetic counsel on life's minutiae is advice, and how many believe it is commandment?

I remember Hinckley coming to BYU (in 2000?) and giving a talk that included counsel to young women to wear only one earring in each ear. I've since wanted to ask him if he regretted saying that, because I'm quite sure that's all anyone remembers about the talk. Did he go too far?

What if it was the prophet who said "white shirts only" instead of someone's stake president? What about tattoos? What if he said "no more watching sports on Sunday"? And on and on ....

So we know some of you would never pull an Abraham/Isaac no matter what God said. Fair enough. What about your earrings?

I'm honestly curious.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Last week's "Would God do that?" thread, our priesthood lesson on obedience yesterday, and today's thread on white shirts got me thinking.

We've discussed all the cataclysmic commands that God could possibly ever give (go slaughter the Amalekites, give your wife to the prophet, go take a slave, etc.), and tried to find our own personal line in the sand.

I'm curious ... what about the other direction? How many of you believe that prophetic counsel on life's minutiae is advice, and how many believe it is commandment?

I remember Hinckley coming to BYU (in 2000?) and giving a talk that included counsel to young women to wear only one earring in each ear. I've since wanted to ask him if he regretted saying that, because I'm quite sure that's all anyone remembers about the talk. Did he go too far?

What if it was the prophet who said "white shirts only" instead of someone's stake president? What about tattoos? What if he said "no more watching sports on Sunday"? And on and on ....

So we know some of you would never pull an Abraham/Isaac no matter what God said. Fair enough. What about your earrings?

I'm honestly curious.

What if he asked you to love everyone? Would you do it?

I don't discount anything a prophet says as not important or not applying to me. But I also know I don't obey all the commandments 100% and never will. When it comes to the minutiae, I do my own prioritizing, try to do my best, and keep repenting.

[Archaea]

I don't wear earrings or navel rings.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't wear earrings or navel rings.

I only give credence to LDS authorities when it comes to theological or ecumenical matters, i.e. actual doctrine (rare) or administrative affairs (often).

IMO, when leaders meddle in or try to influence personal life, such as how to vote, what to wear, how many piercings to have, what movies to see, etc. it's too far. While I recognize the line between communal/congregational and personal may be difficult to formulate, that very difficulty is indication that ecclesiastical leaders have transgressed into the secular realm.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I only give credence to LDS authorities when it comes to theological or ecumenical matters, i.e. actual doctrine (rare) or administrative affairs (often).

IMO, when leaders meddle in or try to influence personal life, such as how to vote, what to wear, how many piercings to have, what movies to see, etc. it's too far. While I recognize the line between communal/congregational and personal may be difficult to formulate, that very difficulty is indication that ecclesiastical leaders have transgressed into the secular realm.

The line is too abstract for me.

Many of the times they are discussing matters which don't affect me. I don't worry about wearing strapless bras, tattoos, ear piercings and the like.

Theologically they provide guidance and inspiration. Where the line starts and stops is certainly difficult to ascertain. However, just because they give something cultural, doesn't mean I'll dismiss it either. It's worthy of consideration, and frequently it's not out of line with my conduct.

If you wear earrings, it won't bother me though.

[Indy Coug]

The principle being taught is that our bodies are sacred and that according to President Hinckley, et al, is that God doesn't approve of the 'ritual mutilation' of our bodies such as piercings and tattoos.

I don't see why this constitutes going "too far".

Certainly, there is biblical precedent for this.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The principle being taught is that our bodies are sacred and that according to President Hinckley, et al, is that God doesn't approve of the 'ritual mutilation' of our bodies such as piercings and tattoos.

I don't see why this constitutes going "too far".

Certainly, there is biblical precedent for this.

Where?

1 Corinthians 3.16 (KJV): Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

YE is a plural pronoun. Paul isn't writing that physical bodies are temples - the congregation of saints is the house of God. They don't need to go to build a Jewish-style temple; their gathering is enough.

1 Cor. 6:19 (KJV): What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Paul is writing about how fornication corrupts the body - not commenting on nose rings.

In fact, circumcision is a barbaric "ritual mutilation." How can that be okay, while an extra earring is not?
I've heard justifications that circumcision is medically advantageous. Doubtful, but even if it is so the point of circumcision in the OT wasn't medicine; it was to prove a covenant.

People all over the earth have ritual piercings, tatoos, and other forms of body manipuation as part of their cultural heritage. Hinckley's statement really only applies to modern, western cultures, where some people of the younger generations are looking different from what the conservative LDS leaders approve of. This is hardly counsel that is appropriate for the entire world, but a reaction to late 20th and early 21st US (and European) social impulses.

Sure, we should keep our bodies nice - they're all we've got - but having an extra earring does not make someone more or less righteous. I think it's a good idea to take care of one's body, but I don't approve of attaching judgments of righteousness to appearance. Extremes are a bad idea because they can restrict access to certain careers or professions, but don't tell me it's a commandment to wear certain clothes, have hair a certain length, and look a certain way.

After all, the Lord looks on the heart.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Last week's "Would God do that?" thread, our priesthood lesson on obedience yesterday, and today's thread on white shirts got me thinking.

We've discussed all the cataclysmic commands that God could possibly ever give (go slaughter the Amalekites, give your wife to the prophet, go take a slave, etc.), and tried to find our own personal line in the sand.

I'm curious ... what about the other direction? How many of you believe that prophetic counsel on life's minutiae is advice, and how many believe it is commandment?

I remember Hinckley coming to BYU (in 2000?) and giving a talk that included counsel to young women to wear only one earring in each ear. I've since wanted to ask him if he regretted saying that, because I'm quite sure that's all anyone remembers about the talk. Did he go too far?

What if it was the prophet who said "white shirts only" instead of someone's stake president? What about tattoos? What if he said "no more watching sports on Sunday"? And on and on ....

So we know some of you would never pull an Abraham/Isaac no matter what God said. Fair enough. What about your earrings?

I'm honestly curious.

My bottom line is, does it affect me getting a Temple Recommend. In my simple world requirements for the Temple are commandments and all else is counsel.

We need to have the separation. That is so those that follow the counsel can look down on those who don't and tell them how rotten and disobedient they are. Otherwise it wouldn't be fun for them.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

Sure, we should keep our bodies nice - they're all we've got - but having an extra earring does not make someone more or less righteous. ...
After all, the Lord looks on the heart.

So if this is the case, why do you think he mentioned it?

Originally Posted by BYU71

My bottom line is, does it affect me getting a Temple Recommend. In my simple world requirements for the Temple are commandments and all else is counsel.

We need to have the separation. That is so those that follow the counsel can look down on those who don't and tell them how rotten and disobedient they are. Otherwise it wouldn't be fun for them.

So if I understand you correctly (not arguing with you here, just asking), any counsel that cannot be circumscribed into the temple questions in one way or another, is regarded by you as suggestion?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

So if this is the case, why do you think he mentioned it?



So if I understand you correctly (not arguing with you here, just asking), any counsel that cannot be circumscribed into the temple questions in one way or another, is regarded by you as suggestion?

He may be saying that, and perhaps it might be a starting point from which to examine the advice.

Temple worship and temple worthiness is what we are preparing ourselves to do, from a theological standpoint.