Are LDS Prophets Only Speculating?

[christopher123]

So if the prophet speaks on doctrine, he may be speculating. If he instructs you to wear or not wear something, he isn't speculating.

Bingo!!!


Oh, and you forgot the time factor too. Just follow and assume everything he teaches is right, and from God, until such time in the future (5, 10, 100 years) when he is found completely wrong, and then just call it his opinion and speculation and disregard it.


Chris <><

 

[Ran77]

So if the prophet speaks on doctrine, he may be speculating. If he instructs you to wear or not wear something, he isn't speculating.

This does not answer any of the questions I asked in my post. Since I have already responded to this line of thought maybe you can take a moment or two on my questions.

 

[RufustheRed]

The bottom line, as I see it, is this. (1) Because the LDS prophet has spoken, does it mean the following? Are ear rings right or wrong? Because he has spoken on the topic, are ear rings a subject that is to be approached during baptismal and temple recommend interviews?

(2) Tattoos. Are tattoos strictly forbidden for the members of the LDS church? Again, what, if anything, is determined during temple recommend or baptismal interviews? If a person has tattoos, are they prohibited from joining the LDS church? If they get a tattoo as a member of the LDS church, are they excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped?

(3) Because the LDS prophet has spoken on these topics, do his words become doctrine? Will these issues and/or revelations be voted on at conference?

Thanks

Mac

 

[Rescued One]

This does not answer any of the questions I asked in my post. Since I have already responded to this line of thought maybe you can take a moment or two on my questions.

If you expect answers from others, you have to give answers to others and acknowledge the answers you have already received.

 

[RufustheRed]

Oh please!!! we rely on the intelligence of the people reading these posts to see what your agenda is and it doesn&#8217;t do well for your argument.

I think she is doing rather well, thank you? Why else would the LDS be so negative in their responses to her?

I bet just about everyone reading this knows what the prophet is talking about (and I&#8217;m including you) without having to take it to an extreme.

First, I thought that LDS were not allowed to gamble Second, I believe that this is essential to any meaningful dialog between OC and LDS. Many's the time that the OC have stated that something was an LDS belief only to have the LDS jump in and say "That's not doctrine." Clarification is always good understanding.

We also all know there are OC religions with dress standards that are far more restrictive who claim their restrictions are Biblical and a sin if not followed.

Is it a sin to have or get tattoos in the LDS church?

Do you wear a head covering and sit silently in your church or was Paul just speculating about that one?

My church believes EXACTLY that. Is there something wrong with this teaching?

Doesn&#8217;t the Bible say something about removing the beam out of your own eye first?

Meaning what? Are you castigating someone for asking penetrating questions?

Mac

 

[Ran77]

The bottom line, as I see it, is this. (1) Because the LDS prophet has spoken, does it mean the following? Are ear rings right or wrong? Because he has spoken on the topic, are ear rings a subject that is to be approached during baptismal and temple recommend interviews?

(2) Tattoos. Are tattoos strictly forbidden for the members of the LDS church? Again, what, if anything, is determined during temple recommend or baptismal interviews? If a person has tattoos, are they prohibited from joining the LDS church? If they get a tattoo as a member of the LDS church, are they excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped?

(3) Because the LDS prophet has spoken on these topics, do his words become doctrine? Will these issues and/or revelations be voted on at conference?

These are good questions.

1. The Church's current stance on earrings is not a statement of them being right or wrong. I think it probably has a lot to do with what is acceptable in our current society. Christ had long hair as was acceptable in His day - it isn't seen as appropriate (although I think it is gaining more acceptance) now.

I don't know how multiple piercings or piercings on men would affect that baptismal interviews. Maybe someone else can add a comment if they know.

2. I know that people with tattoos are not forbidden from joining the Church. I home teach an ex-biker lady who is about 60% covered with tattoos. In fact, she got one with her baptismal date right after she joined. The stake president knows about it and laughs whenever it is mentioned.

3. And just because Church leadership has spoken about a topic - it doesn't automatically become doctrine. It should be taken as good advice - something that the members should carefully consider.

Thanks again for these questions, I think they were very insightful to the discussion.

 

[Ran77]

If you expect answers from others, you have to give answers to others and acknowledge the answers you have already received.

Feel free to point out where I have not already done so. I'll be happy to respond. Then while you are at it, you can provide answers to the questions that I have already pointed out as having gone unanswered by you.

Basically, I'm willing - are you?

 

[Swart]

1. The Church's current stance on earrings is not a statement of them being right or wrong. I think it probably has a lot to do with what is acceptable in our current society. Christ had long hair as was acceptable in His day - it isn't seen as appropriate (although I think it is gaining more acceptance) now.

I don't know how multiple piercings or piercings on men would affect that baptismal interviews. Maybe someone else can add a comment if they know.

2. I know that people with tattoos are not forbidden from joining the Church. I home teach an ex-biker lady who is about 60% covered with tattoos. In fact, she got one with her baptismal date right after she joined. The stake president knows about it and laughs whenever it is mentioned.

3. And just because Church leadership has spoken about a topic - it doesn't automatically become doctrine. It should be taken as good advice - something that the members should carefully consider.

Excellent points Randy. I'm always amazed at the difficulty people have with handling ambiguity. A Prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.

 

[RufustheRed]

...
However, the evidence works against your theory. The evidence being the responses that the LDS have to our posts. They seem to understand what I have to say and agree with it most of the time, while they frequently comment about your posts being inaccurate and unrepresentative of our beliefs.

Are you surprised that your fellow LDSers would agree with you? Of course they do. Over and over, LDS will agree with each other, if for no other reason than to show a united front. I'm NOT saying that this is why the couple of other LDS posters appear to agree with you on this thread. Only saying that we all have our little amen choruses.

I'm sure you'll come up with something that refutes the notion that the LDS are the best ones to understand the LDS Doctrine.

Not really called for, is it? Here we are trying to get to the bottom of an important issue and there has to be a personal barb thrown in.

I didn't ask the prophet. My wife does not have any piercings and neither of us have tattoos. (And just in case you're wondering - I don't have any piercings either.)

That's cool. Neither do I, but I have some ugly scars from my military experiences. I think that a pretty tattoo would be more appealing, but... I've had enough needles, thank you. The same goes for the piercings. If someone pokes one more hole in me... Well, never mind.

Are there reasons for avoiding tattoos? Yes.
Are there reasons for avoiding multiple piercings? Yes.

I'm surprised that you can't come up with some reasons on your own. However, I can.

Getting a tattoo runs an unnecessary risk of contracting the Aids virus. There may be other health risks as well, but I'm not sure of what they all are.

I wonder if the opinion (is that what is is?) of your prophet is based on health or appearance?

I'm not sure if there are any health concerns associated with piercings, but if there are that would be a good reason to council against them.

I wonder if it would be the same health reason for a man as a woman?

However, the strongest reasons I can think of is the appearance of evil. Tattoos and multiple piercings still carry a stigma in our society. Two young men go to a job interview; one wears a suit and the other comes in with spiked hair, multiple piercings, and a skull tattooed to his forehead. Which one is more likely to get the job?

Where do we draw the line as to what we allow society dictate to our beliefs? There are some (of which I am one) who believe that people who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery. However, society tells me that is okay. I know of LDS members who have divorced and remarried. It seems that this is not encouraged but alright under certain circumstances. To me this act is NOT avoiding the appearance of evil, but becoming the face of it.

In the movies, you want the audience to instantly recognize a character as a bad guy - what do you do? That's right, plaster on a couple of wicked looking tattoos and pierce his nose and the audience will immediately identify him as trouble.

You forgot the black hat.

Right or wrong, society still largely judges these things to be unacceptable. If you want to avoid the appearance of evil then currently that includes remaining un-tattooed and limited piercing.

To a degree, but society be darned. We are not to be to this world. Romans 12:2 says, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Why not have the leadership issue a proclamation regarding motorcycles? These can get some stereotypical negative images about evil, etc.

I feel confident that the reasons I have given above represent a good portion of the thinking that is behind the prophet's counsel against these things. They represent good and reasonable reasons to avoid tattoos and multiple piercings. I am not sure why anyone would rail against counsel intended to remove some possible obstacles in our lives.

You are probably correct in listing the reasons, but it still boils down to is it (or are they) a commandment (because your prophet made the statement) or is it a suggestion because it is probably the wise thing to do? More simply put, is it a sin to for women to wear more than one pair of earrings? Is it a sin to be tattooed?

I believe the appearance I give will be one of frustration at having to deal with a constant turrent of misrepresentations of the LDS beliefs.

However, this is a self-inflicted calling which should have been embarked upon when you were assure that you had a healthy dose the gift of patience. Personally, I don't believe that there are many misrepresentations, only bantering by some LDS over semantics, vis a vis, commandments vs. advice or eternal life vs. everlasting life, etc.

I feel that Phoebe Ann brought up a very important subject. Just when are a prophet's musings to adhered to or merely pondered about?

Actually, I encountered this very early in my LDS career. I went to the local meetinghouse to hear the spring conference on one Saturday evening. The prophet at that time was Joseph Fielding Smith and he strongly admonished those who were practicing birth control to stop that faithless act and provide a tabernacle for which spirit children to come into. He stated that many people were practicing birth control for economic reasons and said that the Lord would provide for the faithful. This was all well and good because he wasn't speaking to me. <g> However, the person I went to the meeting with told me, once we were in the car, he didn't think that the prophet expected us to commit financial suicide. Therefore, he and his wife where going to continue to plan their family the way that they had been doing. I asked him if we were listening to the same talk???? He assured me that we were, but that I was still new to LDS life and would eventually understand what's required and what's nice to do,but NOT required. Again, this topic wasn't voted on so I guess the prophet was only saying that IF we wanted more blessings or financial help, here's what to do, GET YOUR WIFE PREGNANT! Boy, talk about hearing one thing being told that it was something else!

Anyway, have a nice week-end.

Mac

 

[RufustheRed]

Phoebe, including your own words is usually something that is done when trying to discuss something. Just writing a few quotes is considered bad writing style because it doesnt represent your interpretation of those quotes.

So is this a class on expository writing or a forum to discuss ideas?

FTR, I have no problem usually following her posts.

Mac

 

[MormonFriend]

... Why not have the leadership issue a proclamation regarding motorcycles? These can get some stereotypical negative images about evil, etc. ...

Was it in the Gospel Principles Manual where it specified the difference between a Harley and a Hoover as a Hoover's dirtbag being located internally?

 

[RufustheRed]

Was it in the Gospel Principles Manual where it specified the difference between a Harley and a Hoover as a Hoover's dirtbag being located internally?

Oops! Missed THAT one (Was that really published?) What is THAT saying about who usually operates which?

Mac

Have a nice week-end

 

[Wrigley]

Generally speaking a general authority or others asked to speak at conference will speak on an issue such as avoiding sin, or preparing for temple marriage, or inviting the Holy Ghost by righteous living. In each message that we hear and internalize we gain knowledge of what God would have us do. Words spoken at Conference are not to be taken with a grain of salt. They are for our benefit, just as the words in the scriptures are for our benefit. Eternal life depends on giving heed to the words in the scriptures as well. I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

Does that make the words at conference EQUAL to that of your scriptures?

 

[Wrigley]

In light of the fact that GBH spoke of our bodies as being a temple, it is extremely important for us to realize its sacredness. I believe that it is against God's will that we disfigure what He has created. Furthermore, people do it to draw attention to themselves, which attitude is counter productive in becoming Christ like.



I do not know the official guidelines, but common sense would tell me that if the tattoo is visible, it should come off. The other common sense issue is if the young man understands the sanctity of his body and that it was a mistake to disfigure it. If he doesn't understand that principle, then likely he doesn't understand the reason for serving a mission.

So, if the tatoo should be removed before going on a mission, how about other issues. What if the person is overweight? Or has a scar across his forehead? Should those issues be resolved as well?

 

[buddy mack]

So, if the tatoo should be removed before going on a mission, how about other issues. What if the person is overweight? Or has a scar across his forehead? Should those issues be resolved as well?

If I could have only had my scar removed off my shoulders.

 

[Ran77]

Are you surprised that your fellow LDSers would agree with you? Of course they do. Over and over, LDS will agree with each other, if for no other reason than to show a united front. I'm NOT saying that this is why the couple of other LDS posters appear to agree with you on this thread. Only saying that we all have our little amen choruses.

Are we arguing for argument sake here?

It would seem silly to me to argue against the notion that the LDS are the best ones to understand LDS doctrine. When comments of my fellow LDS line up with what I have said that is a strong indication that I am not incorrectly interpreting LDS beliefs - as Phoebe has charged against me. When, in addition, my fellow LDS regularly point out the misrepresentations that I do - that is a strong indication that those views are not representative of what we believe.

Arguing against this observations strikes me as a bit of playing the devil's advocate. I have not presented unsound thinking in this matter. I can't imagine why you would argue against this particular matter.

Not really called for, is it? Here we are trying to get to the bottom of an important issue and there has to be a personal barb thrown in.

Mac,

Phoebe throws in plenty of barbs of her own. When you are consistent in pointing out this as a problem with everyone involved - I'll be more inclined to listen to you.

That's cool. Neither do I, but I have some ugly scars from my military experiences. I think that a pretty tattoo would be more appealing, but... I've had enough needles, thank you. The same goes for the piercings. If someone pokes one more hole in me... Well, never mind.

You are comparing something that was forced on you (the scars) against something a person deliberately has done to them. If we are to compare apples to apples I would say, anyone who has been nabbed by a group of thugs and strapped down to a table and then had some mad tattooist put on tattoo on him - that person has done no wrong in the matter of the tattoo being on his body. And if that story were really true, the Church would not hold it against him.

If you're speaking about tattoos being used to cover an ugly scar - you might be right. And I don't know that under those circumstances that the Church would have an objection to it. As I have mentioned before, exceptions to the general rule exist.

I wonder if the opinion (is that what is is?) of your prophet is based on health or appearance?

You left out that it could be both, and it there could be even more reasons than what I was able to think of. Why limit him to a single reason?

I wonder if it would be the same health reason for a man as a woman?

I would think so.

Where do we draw the line as to what we allow society dictate to our beliefs? There are some (of which I am one) who believe that people who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery. However, society tells me that is okay. I know of LDS members who have divorced and remarried. It seems that this is not encouraged but alright under certain circumstances. To me this act is NOT avoiding the appearance of evil, but becoming the face of it.

Good question.

My thought on it is that it has to do with our own perceptions. As long as we see these things as indications of thuggery or rebellion, then they remain very real considerations for avoiding if we do not want the appearance of evil. As long as people do this to show how tough and bad they are to everyone around them, then it is not just society dictating these reactions to us - they are manifestations of our own thoughts.

To a degree, but society be darned. We are not to be to this world. Romans 12:2 says, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Why not have the leadership issue a proclamation regarding motorcycles? These can get some stereotypical negative images about evil, etc.

What do you base the appearance of evil on? Or is it something too trivial to be worried about?

You are probably correct in listing the reasons, but it still boils down to is it (or are they) a commandment (because your prophet made the statement) or is it a suggestion because it is probably the wise thing to do? More simply put, is it a sin to for women to wear more than one pair of earrings? Is it a sin to be tattooed?

If there is a corresponding disciplinary action then it is a commandment, if not it would be a suggestion. I don't happen to know if Temple Recommends or baptismal recommends are withheld because of them.

Without knowing for sure, I would say that it is a commandment. It addresses specific behaviors with a very clear indication of what is acceptable and what is not.

However, this is a self-inflicted calling which should have been embarked upon when you were assure that you had a healthy dose the gift of patience. Personally, I don't believe that there are many misrepresentations, only bantering by some LDS over semantics, vis a vis, commandments vs. advice or eternal life vs. everlasting life, etc.

You are welcomed to your opinion.

You also call me on the barbs you percieve I make and say nothing about the ones Pheobe makes. To me, that doesn't instill much confidence in your ability to notice such matters. Is it a matter of turning a blind eye towards those who oppose the LDS?

I feel that Phoebe Ann brought up a very important subject. Just when are a prophet's musings to adhered to or merely pondered about?

I believe that this has been aswered.

The vast majority of the items that LDS on this board have pointed out to be musings come from sources that most LDS will never hear of, let alone read them. Most have never been presented to the Church members as a body. Those are being compared to a statement that the prophet made to the Church members as a body and very clearly listed it something to be adhered to. And somehow, it is being expressed as reasonable to question the LDS' ability to distinguish between the two.

Let me ask you: can you distinguish between the two or are they completely similar in your mind?

Anyway, have a nice week-end.

You too.

 

[MormonFriend]

So, if the tatoo should be removed before going on a mission, how about other issues. What if the person is overweight? Or has a scar across his forehead? Should those issues be resolved as well?

Keep in context the reasoning for most tattoos, vanity to draw attention to oneself. Scars are not vanity.

Overweight, IMO, is a sign of out of control appetites and should be considered as a reason for many mission or temple restrictions. I, myself, would do better as a temple goer if I practiced what I am preaching here if I lost 25 pounds.

 

[Wrigley]

Keep in context the reasoning for most tattoos, vanity to draw attention to oneself. Scars are not vanity.

I have a friend who is very proud of his scars. Scars can and are a vanity in his case. And I would be shocked if it weren't in others.

Overweight, IMO, is a sign of out of control appetites and should be considered as a reason for many mission or temple restrictions. I, myself, would do better as a temple goer if I practiced what I am preaching here if I lost 25 pounds.

I've made the point before that mormonism is a very man centered religion. I believe your comments here is a prime example of that.

 

[MormonFriend]

I have a friend who is very proud of his scars. Scars can and are a vanity in his case. And I would be shocked if it weren't in others.

Did he put the scars there intentionally to get attention?

We probably all are vain to some extent, and each must deal with it accordingly.
Vainity can surface in many ways, and vainity is a form of selfishness. The laws of heaven operate on laws of selflessness, so this discrepancy is what each person must improve upon.

Overweight, IMO, is a sign of out of control appetites and should be considered as a reason for many mission or temple restrictions. I, myself, would do better as a temple goer if I practiced what I am preaching here if I lost 25 pounds.

I've made the point before that mormonism is a very man centered religion. I believe your comments here is a prime example of that.

It is man centered because we believe God wants us to have bridled all of our passions? Overweight is, for most people, an evidence that our passion for food is not under control.

I don't understand how you relate that to being man centered.

 

[Mary_Magdalene]

***********mod hat on**********


I have cleaned up this thread for numerous violations on flaming and baiting. Please respect others when posting.

If one of your posts has been removed it was due to rule violations. Please read forum rules before posting.

Thanks.

-Godschosengirl


***********mod hat off********