A bridge too far?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

Who is 'he?' God? or Hinckley? (they're not the same)

[Indy Coug]

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.

[BYU71]

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?

I consider counsel a stronger word than suggestion, but yea, basically that is how I feel.

[All-American]

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

Who is 'he?' God? or Hinckley? (they're not the same)

Hinckley.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

It's a good point. A lot of times when people say "Temple Recommend questions," they are thinking of concrete, measurable things, like Word of Wisdom or chastity.

Some of the other questions leave a lot more room for interpretation.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hinckley.

I have no idea why Hinckley or any GA would want everyone to look like a 21st century prosperous, American, educated professional, but that, to me, seems to be what they want.

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

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.

Except he didn't say it to the so-called worldwide church. He said it to BYU students.

So how far does that go?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Tex

Except he didn't say it to the so-called worldwide church. He said it to BYU students.

So how far does that go?

he said it in general conference... how is that not worldwide?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Except he didn't say it to the so-called worldwide church. He said it to BYU students.

So how far does that go?

A good point for the piercing thing, but I'm commenting on the attempts to control appearance that seem to pop up everywhere - at least, from what I've heard anecdotally (the white shirts, no facial hair, clean-cut, etc.). Why is appearance even an issue? Doesn't the church have bigger fish to fry?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

he said it in general conference... how is that not worldwide?

Although it may have been repeated in General Conference, I thought it was originally stated in a young adult fireside. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.