- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Has anyone heard a letter being read from the pulpit saying females should only have one set of pierced earrings and males should not have any? I was talking about earrings today and told this person that it was not a commandment but was Pres. Hinkley’s personal opinion. This person claimed to have heard it read over the pulpit. I did not see anything in the handbook about it.
Thanks.
Here’s what my search turned up at lds.org From the For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet:
In the Gospel Study Topics section of the website:
http://lds.org/study/topics/body-piercing?lang=eng&query=one+pair+earrings Pres. Hinckley Oct 2000 GC:
Quote:I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several.
They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever or attractive to so adorn themselves?
I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well, even the tongue. It is absurd.
We—the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve—have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings.”
Elder Ballard April 2001 GC:
Quote:Have we studied his counsel and identified the things we need to avoid or to do differently? I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, “If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.”
Wearing two pair of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.
A second Talk by Pres. Hinckley in Oct 2000 GC:
Quote:Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.
So it looks like it got 3 mentions over the pulpit in GC.
So, it’s counsel – and some implementations are discouraged. Fine. I’ve got no problem with that. I think it’s good general counsel, and I’m glad it’s not presented as a divine command – and I really do think that’s important, cultural mutation notwithstanding.
So again, the biggest issue here seems to be turning something into a commandment that was never presented as such. Honestly, what 80 year old man wouldn’t criticize the fashions of young people? “Kids these days…”
Thank you for the responses. I failed to think about what what I was meaning to ask. I’m looking for a supposed letter that was read in sacrament meetings.
Thank you.
Thoreau wrote:Thank you for the responses. I failed to think about what what I was meaning to ask.
I’m looking for a supposed letter that was read in sacrament meetings.
Thank you.
Oh
thatpulpit. Well, the citations I found include statements by Pres. GBH that “the FP and Q12 have taken a position…” so where is that position originally stated? There must have been a letter or something but I don’t recall it.
Thank you mercy. I don’t think that letter exists or that it happened. If it did the policy should be in the handbook instead of only in pamphlets like For the Strength of Youth and in references to conference talks.
I don’t believe it exists. The “real” church standards for dress are very vague and open to individual interpretation. They even reminded us that white shirts and ties are not a commandment. I think Pres. Hinckley was just trying to tell us to think about the image we are portraying to others and he mentioned some examples that aren’t supposed to be taken as commandments. Now a Bishop could have easily interpreted that as a commandment and instructed his youth to obey it as one, but that doesn’t make it one.
I haven’t heard of a letter read over the pulpit, but it has been elevated to near-doctrinal status. As I pointed out in a post on Wheat & Tares a few weeks ago ( http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/04/27/if-i-were-in-charge-stop-counting-earrings/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/04/27/if-i-were-in-charge-stop-counting-earrings/ There were a lot of interesting comments to the post.
I also doubt there was a formal First Presidency Letter sent out to be read over the pulpit in all local wards. Seriously, it seems like a pretty ridiculous level of an item for such a dramatic organizational procedure. Sure, it was mentioned in GC. I like to ask people if they really want to go down that path — that everything ever said in a GC is a salvation-oriented commandment. REALLY? Do they really want to go there? It’s a minefield of contradiction and uncomfortable “commandments” (everything said right?). I know with every fiber of my being, and with all the depths of my soul, that I can find a GC talk or a book written by an Apostle with SOMETHING in it that will make them cringe and refuse to be obedient
The only people who say yes have absolutely no idea of LDS history or what they are talking about. It isn’t worth engaging in a heated argument with someone like that. It just isn’t worth it. Live and let live. They can do that if it’s what’s valuable to them in their own life journey. I mean that with no sarcasm.
When someone wants to insist that such a thing exists — it’s THEIR burden to produce the letter. Not mine! I am not going to spend my whole life trying to prove negatives. And if I had a dime for every time someone told me they were sure they “read it in the Ensign … or something like that” so it must be a commandment …
Letter over the pulpit or not, it’s pretty hard to argue against the assertion the prophet said it. It then just becomes a matter of absolute letter of the law and complete obedience, or as Ray said…good counsel and the right understanding of the message being taught. I actually could understand a young man breaking up with a yw who refuses to take out the second pair of ear rings, or the yw who breaks up with a guy that pierces his ear. Not because I think it signifies one thing or the other … Just that one might have strict adherence to the prophet’s words and one might be more liberal. It could just be a realization the attitudes don’t mesh for that person. Again, that doesn’t make them right or wrong….just different.
It does seem in the church people respect loyal and strict obedience, not so much the liberal faithful.
Interesting perspective Heber13. Quote:It could just be a realization the attitudes don’t mesh for that person.
and that’s a very valid concern and an important realization.
It’s easy to forget there sometimes are really simple, valid reasons for things that, instinctively, might cause a negative emotional reaction. If two people’s paradigms are radically different, it’s harder to make a relationship work – as many here can attest. I understand totally, therefore, someone advising someone else to be very careful about getting deeply attached to someone who appears to have a very different outlook on life – even as I really don’t like using stereotypes by appearance as a universal limitation.
This is an example of one more paradox of life that just can’t be avoided completely. Some of these things we simply have to accept as inevitable – and do the best we can individually to strike a balance that works for us, while allowing others to strike balances that work for them.
I think it’s unfortunate that church leaders make these pronouncements-cum-commandments regarding personal appearance, though I understand the motivation. For some people, this amounts to throwing down the gauntlet, and no matter how they feel about other aspects of their relationship to the church, they can’t resist challenging it. As a result, they get marginalized over what amounts to a trivial issue, or a non-issue. Very unfortunate. But perhaps this is an intended consequence — separating the sheep from the goats, ‘us’ from ‘them’. Heber’s comment makes sense. Why would I want to marry someone who has willfully identified themselves as one of ‘them’ when I have determined to be one of ‘us’?
Speaking of ‘us’ vs ‘them’, why do the church disaster report emails (perhaps some others of you get these?) always break out and report deaths, injuries and other losses to church members (and implicitly, to non-members) separately. Y’all will probably think I’m being ridiculous here, but that bugs me for some reason. What is the point, except to reinforce the dichotomy of us/them, or to satisfy idle curiosity?
BTW, I’d like to bet that if one were to take the union of all the prophetic grooming and appearance ‘recommendations’ from over the years and follow them, they’d look a mess.
doug wrote:BTW, I’d like to bet that if one were to take the union of all the prophetic grooming and appearance ‘recommendations’ from over the years and follow them, they’d look a mess.
That’s a pretty good point, doug. I always thought it was interesting thinking of how David O McKay broke the mold by wearing light suits. He was awesome!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.