Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[Calm]

It still amazes me that women ever clamped a vise on their ears, those things hurt like heck.

Which may explain why many women didn't wear them except for dress.

[Duncan]

Here's a photo.

Thepicture isn't such that you could really tell, but it looks like the lady on the far left does indeed have earrings.

far left first lady in the second row, black hair looks like she has earrings. I just called my mum (who wasn't a member in the 1950's and graduated High School then) she says that women typically didn't wear long danglers but she didn't think they were very practical anyways then or now because they would get caught in your hair sometimes. She says that people got bent out of shape about dress length, smoking, Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis-granted that is her experience and not everyone's

[CV75]

My point in citing this anti-bangs phase within Mormonism is to show the relativism inherent in Mormon "counsel" about modesty.

Please put a finer point on your point: what position of moral relativism are you coming from, and what conclusion do you draw from that finer point?

Also, what is purpose of the quotation marks around counsel?

[CV75]

Here's another old LDS publication

<snip>

So this tells us a few things.

I disagree; this only tells us that men and women think differently and are counseled accordingly.

[CV75]

Yet it still reflects the idea that a woman's intelligence is written on her body, rather than in the spirit, as it would be for a male.

This runs contrary to the identification of those whose manner of dress was exceedingly fine in Lehi's dream (1 Nephi 8:27).

[maxrep12]

Am I the only one who finds this whole story unlikely? The timing was awfully convenient. If the events did actually take place as described, the very public retelling was careless with regards to this girls feelings and privacy. What if she had prayed about the counsel and found it hollow?

Was this story fabricated to publicly shame all girls who had not yet conformed by removing their 2nd earing?

I do not think a 2nd earing has any eternal gravity, nor do I believe that lamanites who accept the gospel will turn white, yet we have modern prophets who claim the opposite. Is it okay to pray and find out they are wrong?

[CV75]

Am I the only one who finds this whole story unlikely? The timing was awfully convenient. If the events did actually take place as described, the very public retelling was careless with regards to this girls feelings and privacy. What if she had prayed about the counsel and found it hollow?

Was this story fabricated to publicly shame all girls who had not yet conformed by removing their 2nd earing?

I do not think a 2nd earing has any eternal gravity, nor do I believe that lamanites who accept the gospel will turn white, yet we have modern prophets who claim the opposite. Is it okay to pray and find out they are wrong?

Elder Bednar stated that the issue was not the earrings, his point being that observation (both in the sense of awareness of what is going on and obedience to counsel) leads to the gift of discernment. The young man was able to discern that they would not be a good match because he was aware of the woman’s outward behavior and his personal premium on obedience. “The young man was quick to observe [see] that the young woman was not quick to observe [see or obey].”

Based on the timing of President Hinckley’s counsel and Elder Bednar’s talk, it seems the incident occurred about 5 years prior to his talk, plenty of time for the young man to go sour and the young woman to repent.

It does occur that people pray about counsel only to disagree with it, sometimes for their own well-thought-out unique circumstance, and sometimes for their own druthers. It is not for me to say whether they are inspired or not, and while they may usually deal with it quietly, sometimes their behavior certainly makes it easy for me to be “quick to observe.”

[Duncan]

The thing that gets me is how do others know what my or others motives are for doing something or wearing something? We can know them by their fruits and NOT by their roots

[CV75]

The thing that gets me is how do others know what my or others motives are for doing something or wearing something? We can know them by their fruits and NOT by their roots

I think that by and large we can only know another’s motive if he shares it. The gift of discernment in the story was applied only after the boy was quick to observe (see) that the girl was not quick to observe (see or obey)—he discerned that they would not make a great couple (regardless of her motive, which is not brought up). He would not be able to discern this if he was not alert, or if he did not practice obedience himself.

The talk seems to be more about taking responsibility to be quick to observe in order to enjoy the gift of discernment, and not about being quick to judge or coerce others, and that discernment is not about another’s motive but about one’s best interest.

In some cases I’m sure motives can be discerned (Alma 12:7; D&C 6:16), but this kind seems to be more a function of the gift of prophecy and the exercise of priesthood keys.

[Cobalt-70]

Please put a finer point on your point: what position of moral relativism are you coming from, and what conclusion do you draw from that finer point?

Also, what is purpose of the quotation marks around counsel?

What I'm saying is that, as far as I can tell, there is no eternal principle by which these standards of dress and grooming are created, and that the Mormon position du jour on modesty is derivative from the surrounding culture--typically American culture.

I put quotations around "counsel" because I don't really understand what it is. It is described as "counsel" and not as a "commandment," yet Mormons generally seem to treat disagreement with that "counsel" as a sin, or at the very least as an outward basis to judge the righteousness of one's soul. So I'm trying to understand this phenomenon. Is it the case that obeying the commandments is not enough, that that we also have to display on our bodies signifiers that we agree with our leader's opinions?

[Cobalt-70]

This runs contrary to the identification of those whose manner of dress was exceedingly fine in Lehi's dream (1 Nephi 8:27).

I don't see 1 Nephi 8:27 as having anything to do with modesty. This was just a furtherance of the Book of Mormon's proto-Marxian theme that when people get individually wealthy in comparison to their neighbors, they tend to get prideful, condescending, and wicked. They display their wealth in their fine clothing, jewelry, and sepulchers, and ultimately either the society is destroyed or the order is overthrown and replaced with a new order in which all property is held in common.

[Cobalt-70]

The issue with hair or jewelry has never been that something was inherintly modest or immodest. The arguement is attached to what the item represents in any given era.

As such, it would be odd if the standards of the church didn't change. The counsel is meant to be relative-relative to the culture invovled and what the issue represents in that culture.

How does one square this, then--or can we--with Ezra Taft Benson's railings about moral relativism? If modesty is relative to the culture in which we live, then maybe Elder Benson was incorrect to be so dismissive of relativism.

[Cobalt-70]

I suppose this makes sense if you see masculinity and femininity as something not part of the fundamental make up of a person. I don't see it that way I see spirit as being masculine or feminine.

Just curious: what elements of masculinity and/or femininity do you think are inherent parts of the spirit? Male dominance versus female submissiveness? Masculine rationality versus female irrationality? Masculine toughness versus feminine tenderness?

[Cobalt-70]

I think that by and large we can only know another’s motive if he shares it. The gift of discernment in the story was applied only after the boy was quick to observe (see) that the girl was not quick to observe (see or obey)—he discerned that they would not make a great couple (regardless of her motive, which is not brought up). He would not be able to discern this if he was not alert, or if he did not practice obedience himself.

The talk seems to be more about taking responsibility to be quick to observe in order to enjoy the gift of discernment, and not about being quick to judge or coerce others, and that discernment is not about another’s motive but about one’s best interest.

In some cases I’m sure motives can be discerned (Alma 12:7; D&C 6:16), but this kind seems to be more a function of the gift of prophecy and the exercise of priesthood keys.

The only thing that the man "saw" was that the woman had two earrings. Seeing that, he was quick to judge that there was something wrong with the woman's worthiness. I think that Bednar's linking of this to the gift of "discernment of spirits" is dangerous. One might interpret that as giving everyone a license to judge others, in contravention to Matt. 7:1-5 (the speck and the log parable). The more righteous you feel you are, the greater your "gift"; therefore, the more license you have to be judgmental. That view is exactly the opposite of the meaning of Jesus' parable.

[Cobalt-70]

I think that by and large we can only know another’s motive if he shares it. The gift of discernment in the story was applied only after the boy was quick to observe (see) that the girl was not quick to observe (see or obey)—he discerned that they would not make a great couple (regardless of her motive, which is not brought up). He would not be able to discern this if he was not alert, or if he did not practice obedience himself.

In the context of Bednar's talk, this was not the point he was trying to make. He was saying that this man supposedly had the "gift" to tell that because the woman continued to wear two earrings after Hinckley suggested that women should only wear one, she was possessed by an evil spirit.

[CV75]

What I'm saying is that, as far as I can tell, there is no eternal principle by which these standards of dress and grooming are created, and that the Mormon position du jour on modesty is derivative from the surrounding culture--typically American culture.

I put quotations around "counsel" because I don't really understand what it is. It is described as "counsel" and not as a "commandment," yet Mormons generally seem to treat disagreement with that "counsel" as a sin, or at the very least as an outward basis to judge the righteousness of one's soul. So I'm trying to understand this phenomenon. Is it the case that obeying the commandments is not enough, that that we also have to display on our bodies signifiers that we agree with our leader's opinions?

My understanding is that human temporal dress and grooming standards are set by individuals, groups, cultures, presumably to protect even the weakest from some perceived potential damage, physical or psychic.

Since this thread is about the LDS Church setting standards for its adherents within a changing culture (and times and places), the underlying principle is a religious or spiritual one. From the LDS perspective, this would be construed as having some eternal significance.

Three eternal principles (that I can think of quickly) upon which the LDS Church sets any standard include inspiration, keys, and spiritual progress for the faithful. I have seen where the Church’s stand on hairstyles and dress protect religious observance and spirituality not only from the standpoint of modesty and chastity, but of public reverence (as in not being a source of distraction in sacrament meeting or temples), private reverence (treating one’s natural body as a sacred stewardship), learning (as in university honor codes), and communication (as in presenting oneself that most universally conveys the Spirit to others, which is a function of how one perceives oneself as well as how he perceives others). I suppose that modesty, chastity, reverence, learning, and communication can also be considered to be eternal principles.

When the culture calls for some definition in relation to these eternal principles, the Lord provides them through His servants. This of course will change over time according to cultural changes. I think this follows the same underlying eternal principle as the Fall calling for a Redemption (not driving it, or that the Redemption was derivative of the Fall).

I think it is termed counsel and not commandment when it concerns cultural artifacts or common sense. It helps those who are quick to observe to develop the spiritual gift of discernment, (not to belabor the eternal principles involved, this is another) and apply the counsel accordingly. Counsel is a form of aid and assistance while commandment is a form of endowed stewardship. It is a form of sin to reject needed aid, just as it is sin to reject a divine gift. Either is a matter of degree, of course.

The Church membership is still largely American, so counsel from its leadership follows suit. I think that if American culture were one where topless couture was the norm, we would still have a standard of dress covering the parts understood to have been covered by the traditional clothing given to Adam and Eve. Also, I would not be surprised that local leaders in other countries give plenty of inspired counsel where they observe a clash between the local culture and eternal principle.

Obeying commandments was never enough without doing so with all one’s heart, might, mind and strength. We are a work in progress. A willing heart and mind, and the characteristics of becoming as a little child help us to be quick to observe, discern and incorporate the eternal principles underlying the standards I described above. Of course for this entire system to work it has to be a matter of faith, so for the true follower of Christ, adherence to the standards is not put forth as a display or signifier that we agree with our leaders (how can it? there’s always hypocrisy, imperfection and exception to the rule). Obedience is his private business and blessing which he can then extend to others if it is genuine.

[CV75]

I don't see 1 Nephi 8:27 as having anything to do with modesty. This was just a furtherance of the Book of Mormon's proto-Marxian theme that when people get individually wealthy in comparison to their neighbors, they tend to get prideful, condescending, and wicked. They display their wealth in their fine clothing, jewelry, and sepulchers, and ultimately either the society is destroyed or the order is overthrown and replaced with a new order in which all property is held in common.

One might look at it that way and to make a good point using it that way. My point is that both men and women were immodest (prideful) and reflected such in their clothing, evidence of their warped culture, where your point is that men do not reflect their immodesty in this way.

[CV75]

The only thing that the man "saw" was that the woman had two earrings. Seeing that, he was quick to judge that there was something wrong with the woman's worthiness. I think that Bednar's linking of this to the gift of "discernment of spirits" is dangerous. One might interpret that as giving everyone a license to judge others, in contravention to Matt. 7:1-5 (the speck and the log parable). The more righteous you feel you are, the greater your "gift"; therefore, the more license you have to be judgmental. That view is exactly the opposite of the meaning of Jesus' parable.

I don't want to repeat what I wrote in prior posts, but Elder Bednar explained that being quick to see and obey is a precursor to the spiritual gift of discernment, which is knowing what is the best choice or course of action is. Of course a few people can deny him his explanation and take it as a license to judge others, but such misunderstanding and misapplication is not a new phenomenon.

Edited December 22, 2011 by CV75

[CV75]

In the context of Bednar's talk, this was not the point he was trying to make. He was saying that this man supposedly had the "gift" to tell that because the woman continued to wear two earrings after Hinckley suggested that women should only wear one, she was possessed by an evil spirit.

I think this is incorrect. As I described above, the message is that there is an association between being quick to observe (see and obey) and developing the gift of discernment. He was quick to observe (see) that she was not quick to observe (see and obey), allowing him the advantage of the gift of discernment as to how far he should take their relationship. I think you're going a bit overboard with the evil spirit charge, so I'll comment after I see whether this thread devolves or gets better.

[KevinG]

The decision to look edgy or even take on a rebellious image says more than the number of earrings or tats that one has.

Outward appearance identifies us with a group, an attitude and a level of reverence. Even if we are completely comfortable with our own look it may be a distraction for others or give an impression we don't intend to give. I am somewhat amused at the protestations of some who decide others shouldn't judge them despite their extreme appearances. I've seen lots of kids at the mall who are so riddled with holes and metal protrusions they look like industrial accident victims. They would not easily be mistaken for disciples of Christ in most circles.

On the other hand the cleanest looking Mormon could be a whited sepulcher if their attitudes and actions don't live up to their appearance.

[maxrep12]

Perhaps it is the church's obsessive nature, with visual conformity, that propagates judgemental views.

[Cobalt-70]

Three eternal principles (that I can think of quickly) upon which the LDS Church sets any standard include inspiration, keys, and spiritual progress for the faithful. I have seen where the Church’s stand on hairstyles and dress protect religious observance and spirituality not only from the standpoint of modesty and chastity, but of public reverence (as in not being a source of distraction in sacrament meeting or temples), private reverence (treating one’s natural body as a sacred stewardship), learning (as in university honor codes), and communication (as in presenting oneself that most universally conveys the Spirit to others, which is a function of how one perceives oneself as well as how he perceives others). I suppose that modesty, chastity, reverence, learning, and communication can also be considered to be eternal principles.

When the culture calls for some definition in relation to these eternal principles, the Lord provides them through His servants. This of course will change over time according to cultural changes. I think this follows the same underlying eternal principle as the Fall calling for a Redemption (not driving it, or that the Redemption was derivative of the Fall).

"Inspiration, keys, and spiritual progress for the faithful," "reverence," "learning," etc., may be eternal principles, but that is too general. It is like saying that "modesty" is the eternal standard. Maybe, but there is nothing eternal about what particular items of clothing or jewelry Mormons consider to be immodest.

The algorithm you describe above, if I am reading it correctly, is thusly: (1) Secular human culture defines a standard of immodesty; (2) God converts the secular standard into a religious standard and communicates that to Mormon leaders; and (3) when secular human culture changes, go to step 1. However, this ignores the statements, often made by Mormon leaders, that God's standards of modesty allegedly do not follow worldly trends. Either they do or they don't. I think that the "bangs" example proves that they do.

The Church membership is still largely American, so counsel from its leadership follows suit. I think that if American culture were one where topless couture was the norm, we would still have a standard of dress covering the parts understood to have been covered by the traditional clothing given to Adam and Eve. Also, I would not be surprised that local leaders in other countries give plenty of inspired counsel where they observe a clash between the local culture and eternal principle.

You reference the temple garment. But the garment is a case in point that Mormon modesty standards are relativistic. It used to be that the garment went from the neck to the wrists and to the ankles. Mormon leaders is just one of many examples) said that this was the revealed, eternal standard of modesty. Despite this, however, the garment has shrunk dramatically over the years. Those who say that the garment represents an eternal standard of modesty are evidently not aware of the history of the garment. See, for example, the following allegation by a 1916 apostle:

"The Lord has revealed to us, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that the garment made for our first parents was for a covering and a protection and that it should be worn to the neck, also to the wrists and to the ankles. This is important as it indicates to us the portion of the body to be clothed and what parts of the body may with propriety and safety be exposed. Here modesty in dress is in part, at least, defined."

http://contentdm.lib...du/u?/YWJ,18859

Edited December 23, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

One might look at it that way and to make a good point using it that way. My point is that both men and women were immodest (prideful) and reflected such in their clothing, evidence of their warped culture, where your point is that men do not reflect their immodesty in this way.

I don't see pride and modesty as being equivalent. But even for pride, consider this: if a man wears a very expensive suit to church, how often is he criticized, in so doing, for being too prideful? People look to his "inner self" to judge his level of pride, rather than to his expensive suit. If a woman wears expensive jewelry to church, however, people might talk.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't want to repeat what I wrote in prior posts, but Elder Bednar explained that being quick to see and obey is a precursor to the spiritual gift of discernment, which is knowing what is the best choice or course of action is. Of course a few people can deny him his explanation and take it as a license to judge others, but such misunderstanding and misapplication is not a new phenomenon.

If the Mormon view of the "gift of discernment" now is merely the ability to "know what is the best choice or course of action," then that term has lost any of its original meaning that distinguishes it from the Mormon view of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost." In the scriptures, this gift is simply the ability to detect evil spirits.

[BCSpace]

Quick to Observe

The issue isn't bangs, or spaghetti straps, or waxed upper lips. It's obedience.

I'd say you AND Bednar are wrong. It IS about the earrings AND the obedience. If there is a perception in society that a style or fad or fashion is "alternative" or "rebellious" or immodest, then it will be sin to follow after it. And yes, such perceptions do change over time.