Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[california boy]

In reading through this thread, I wonder about something that has not been talked about at all. One of the clear messages I get from reading the words of Christ is his utter distain for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders during his time. Christ was always breaking the "counsel" of the religious leaders by picking an ear of corn on the sabbath etc. He clearly taught against this kind of rules about every little aspect of religious belief and tried to get those that followed Him to worry more about doing good works and being charitable to others. He taught specifically about being less concerned with outer appearance.

So my question is, how does this counsel from the Savior match up with the trend of the church to seemly counsel such minute issues as how many ear rings should be worn in an ear?? It seems a lot like judging someone as being unrighteous for picking an ear of corn on the Sabbath.

[selek1]

In reading through this thread, I wonder about something that has not been talked about at all. One of the clear messages I get from reading the words of Christ is his utter distain for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders during his time. Christ was always breaking the "counsel" of the religious leaders by picking an ear of corn on the sabbath etc.

Not quite correct.

Rather than "utter distain <sic> for all the rules", Christ did not object to the rules as such, but to their contentious and oppressive application by those advancing a less-than-righteous agenda.

For example (since you raised the issue) Christ did not reject or dismiss the Sabbath and its attendant rules- he pointed out that the wisdom of those rules was intended to benefit man, rather than the other way around.

He did not reject the rules per se, but the malicious and spiteful application by those who had an axe to grind.

The parallels between this thread and that earlier incident are striking and profound.

The various "rules" about bangs, earrings, or skirt length are intended to benefit and preserve the believer, not the other way around- yet who is finding fault and seeking to condemn? It is not the faithful, nor the penitent, nor the humble.

Then and now, it is the rules' lawyer- the faithless and the disbelieving- who is seeking to condemn.

He clearly taught against this kind of rules about every little aspect of religious belief and tried to get those that followed Him to worry more about doing good works and being charitable to others.

This is the core argument of classic anti-nomianism (anti-law)- specifically that Christ's ministry and atonement repealed/revoked or otherwise rendered the law irrelevant.

That notion has been resoundingly rejected throughout the history of Christianity, but periodically resurfaces as people dust it off to try and rationalize/justify their willful natures and itching ears.

Christ himself said, "I come not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it." Christ himself counseled

He did not tell the woman-caught-in-adultery, "Hey, if it feels good, do it."

He said, "Go forth, and sin no more."

Christ neither justified sin, nor gave a wink-and-nod to disobedience. He did not dismiss, repeal, or obvaite the law against adultery- he instead forgave the woman, and told her to go forth in obedience to the law.

Christ never advocated that his apostles and disciples "run riot" in disregarding the law- he challenged the contentious and unrighteous spirit of the Pharisees who hoped to use the law to entrap their fellows and to exercise dominion over the people.

Christ frequently condemned "whited sepulchers", false piety, and mindless, pro-forma rules made for rules' sake- but he always advocated for sincere, cheerful obedience and true repentance.

He taught specifically about being less concerned with outer appearance.

Call For References, please.

I am unfamiliar of any scripture in which Christ referenced outer appearance per se, without also addressing inner worthiness.

Throughout his mortal (and post-mortal) ministry, Christ demanded sincere repentance, honest obediance, and true forsaking of sin, rather than the mere outward appearance of virtue.

In short, the Savior advocated and demanded substance over mere shadow.

So my question is, how does this counsel from the Savior match up with the trend of the church to seemly counsel such minute issues as how many ear rings should be worn in an ear??

The dichotomy to which you refer lies in the argument as (falsely) framed, rather than being inherent to the Church's policies or teachings.

The Pharisaical nit-picking and obsession-with-minutia are inherent in the OP (and the agenda behind it) rather than in the Church's counsel.

I remember rather vividly the scene in Mr. Hollund's Opus in which William H. Macy's character (the vice principal) makes a couple of girls kneel in the hallway to ensure that their "short" skirts actually do extend below the knee.

You will not find members of the Church leadership exercising similar practices, nor stopping people in the Church hallways to count earrings, check beard lengths, or perform lice-checks.

It just doesn't happen- and any (extraordinarily rare) rogues are quickly reined in or released from their callings.

Unlike the Pharisees who dragged the adulteress before Christ in order to entrap him, you will not find members of our Priesthood leadership conducting witch-hunts or public spectacles designed to demean, humiliate, and entrap.

Those tactics are solely the province of those who wish to defame, destroy, and undermine the Church.

-----------------------------

As has already been argued repeatedly in this thread, the issue wasn't the number of earrings, but the disobedient attitude- and the desire to appear "fashionably" rebellious.

In point of fact, the girl wasn't the focus of the anecdote- the young man was.

The point of the original anecdote was that it was far wiser to choose virtue and obediance (substance) over popular- and transitory- trends and fads.

And that is perfectly in keeping with Christ's teachings.

The story was about a wise young priesthood holder who made a tough decision based on eternal principles, rather than about condemning the allegedly wayward girl.

In that point, this thread correlates precisely to the incident with the adulteress- then and now, the accusers were not interested in true justice or obedience to the law, but in entrapping and condemning the righteous.

The Pharisees were less concerned with the woman's adultery than they were in entrapping and disgracing the Savior.

The originators of this thread were likewise less concerned with standards of grooming or modesty than they are in sowing seeds of dissension and contention.

But one is compelled to ask: Which is more trivial and pedantic?

A century-old (and long forgotten) anecdote over hairstyles (and a post-modern fetish for victimhood)?

Or the eternal verity that honest virtue, sincere repentance, and a broken and contrite heart are the sole fruits fit to offer our King and Savior?

Edited December 26, 2011 by selek1

[california boy]

A lot of hot air completely irrelivant to the question I brought up. I am talking more about the Jewish leaderships obsession with taking so many steps on the sabbath, or Christ being condemned for picking an ear of corn on the sabbath. His statement of an ox in the mire. I am referring the the minuta that the church leaders had written out for the people to follow if they wanted to be considered worthy. I don't know where you got the whole adultry issue from.

The question is more related to what the difference is between how many ear rings a woman wears and the laws about how many steps were allowed to be taken on the sabbath. Following each counsel was considered an issue of obedience to church leadership rather than anything related to the actual laws of God.

[selek1]

A lot of hot air completely irrelivant to the question I brought up.

In your opinion. Others are, of course, free to disagree with your bold, and wave-of-hand dismissal.

I am talking more about the Jewish leaderships obsession with taking so many steps on the sabbath, or Christ being condemned for picking an ear of corn on the sabbath.

As am I. That you don't particularly care to have your characterizations challenged or your conclusions eviscerated doesn't make my analysis any less relevant.

Your argument is premised on the idea that Christ rejected "all of the rules put in force by the church leaders" as such.

This is demonstrably false.

Your argument is also premised on the strained comparison between the Jewish religious rules and the Church's counsel. As demonstrated, this comparison is likewise untenable and patently false.

I am referring the the minuta that the church leaders had written out for the people to follow if they wanted to be considered worthy. I don't know where you got the whole adultry issue from.

Why, from the Scriptures themselves, of course.

You contend that Christ displayed "utter distain <sic> for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders". The incident with the woman taken in adultery is a direct and relevant refutation of your contention.

The question is more related to what the difference is between how many ear rings a woman wears and the laws about how many steps were allowed to be taken on the sabbath.

Again, this thread correlates precisely to the incident with the adulteress- then and now, the accusers were not interested in true justice- only in finding fault and in sowing seeds of contention and dissension.

Following each counsel was considered an issue of obedience to church leadership rather than anything related to the actual laws of God.

Gotta love the false dichotomy inherent in this statement.

Call For References: please provide definitive proof that the Church's counsel is neither constitent with nor comparable to the actual laws of God.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So my question is, how does this counsel from the Savior match up with the trend of the church to seemly counsel such minute issues as how many ear rings should be worn in an ear?

It's been a few years now, and I don't have my journals on me to help get the words right, but, for what it's worth, I'll share a personal experience on this topic. Back when I was an undergrad student in America in the 90s, Pres Hinckley visited my uni for a fireside one Sunday evening. I and my LDS housemates were pretty excited, so we got to the concert hall early in order to get good seats right near the front. Pres Hinckley began the formal portion of his talk by taking out of his suit pocket a letter from a Church member and reading out a part of it. It was from a sister who wished to know what the Church policy was on earrings. She said she hoped to have a third piercing, but her husband wasn't keen. Because I was up front, I could see Pres Hinckley roll his eyes as he folded the letter back up and returned it to his pocket. And then he said something along the lines of, 'Brethren and Sisters, the Church has no policy on earrings, and I hope we never have to have such a policy. The Lord doesn't care how many holes a woman wants to put in her ears. He does care about the quality of her heart.' (If I had my journals on me, I'd be able to provide a more accurate paraphrase since I wrote it down, but that's very close.)

He then spent the rest of his talk discoursing on Matthew 23:23-24. He said that one reason we tend to focus on things that don't matter much in place of the 'weightier matters of the law' is that it makes us feel like we are doing something important when, in fact, we aren't doing anything meaningful at all. Church members, he lamented, wish to have a 'policy' about every little thing. It was a great sermon.

Then, only a few years later, Pres Hinckley introduced council against excessive piercings. At the time, I distinctly remembered his expressed desire that the Church would never have a need to issue such council and realised he must have seen it coming. It appears to me that, just as He did for ancient Israel, the Lord is willing to give His people what they demand, even when He'd rather not.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

In your opinion. Others are, of course, free to disagree with your bold, and wave-of-hand dismissal. As am I. That you don't particularly care to have your characterizations challenged or your conclusions eviscerated doesn't make my analysis any less relevant. Your argument is premised on the idea that Christ rejected "all of the rules put in force by the church leaders" as such. This is demonstrably false. Your argument is also premised on the strained comparison between the Jewish religious rules and the Church's counsel. As demonstrated, this comparison is likewise untenable and patently false. Why, from the Scriptures themselves, of course. You contend that Christ displayed "utter distain <sic> for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders". The incident with the woman taken in adultery is a direct and relevant refutation of your contention. Again, this thread correlates precisely to the incident with the adulteress- then and now, the accusers were not interested in true justice- only in finding fault and in sowing seeds of contention and dissension. Gotta love the false dichotomy inherent in this statement. Call For References: please provide definitive proof that the Church's counsel is neither constitent with nor comparable to the actual laws of God.

Ok well if you feel adultery falls in the same catagory as picking corn on the sabbath or wearing an extra ear ring, then yeah your argument makes perfectly good sense.

i have no idea what call to reference you are asking for. You want me to find church counsel to not wear a extra ear ring as being consistent with actual law of God when I think it doesn't?

Edited December 27, 2011 by california boy

[california boy]

It's been a few years now, and I don't have my journals on me to help get the words right, but, for what it's worth, I'll share a personal experience on this topic. Back when I was an undergrad student in America in the 90s, Pres Hinckley visited my uni for a fireside one Sunday evening. I and my LDS housemates were pretty excited, so we got to the concert hall early in order to get good seats right near the front. Pres Hinckley began the formal portion of his talk by taking out of his suit pocket a letter from a Church member and reading out a part of it. It was from a sister who wished to know what the Church policy was on earrings. She said she hoped to have a third piercing, but her husband wasn't keen. Because I was up front, I could see Pres Hinckley roll his eyes as he folded the letter back up and returned it to his pocket. And then he said something along the lines of, 'Brethren and Sisters, the Church has no policy on earrings, and I hope we never have to have such a policy. The Lord doesn't care how many holes a woman wants to put in her ears. He does care about the quality of her heart.' (If I had my journals on me, I'd be able to provide a more accurate paraphrase since I wrote it down, but that's very close.)

He then spent the rest of his talk discoursing on Matthew 23:23-24. He said that one reason we tend to focus on things that don't matter much in place of the 'weightier matters of the law' is that it makes us feel like we are doing something important when, in fact, we aren't doing anything meaningful at all. Church members, he lamented, wish to have a 'policy' about every little thing. It was a great sermon.

Then, only a few years later, Pres Hinckley introduced council against excessive piercings. At the time, I distinctly remembered his expressed desire that the Church would never have a need to issue such council and realised he must have seen it coming. It appears to me that, just as He did for ancient Israel, the Lord is willing to give His people what they demand, even when He'd rather not.

To me, the first sermon is more in line with what Christ was preaching about. The counsel about how many ear rings is appropriate for a woman to have seems contrary to both what Christ was putting forth and what President Hinckley was preaching in the first sermon. Pehaps President Hinckley was doing a better job explaining my views than I am.

[selek1]

Ok well if you feel adultery falls in the same catagory as picking corn on the sabbath or wearing an extra ear ring, then yeah your argument makes perfectly good sense.

Your habit of selective and convenient inability to grasp the English language is both your favorite dodge and your least endearing habit of mind.

No honest reader of this thread believes I offered any such comparison.

I referenced adultery only to demonstrate the falsity of your claim that Christ held "utter distain<sic> for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders during his time".

Clearly, he did not. Christ taught obedience, repentance, and moral and sexual purity and fidelity.

He himself said that he came in fulfillment of the law, rather than its destruction.

You have offered no rebuttal to this cogent point.

i have no idea what call to reference you are asking for. You want me to find church counsel to not wear a extra ear ring as being consistent with actual law of God when I think it doesn't?

You are currently ducking two CFR's, not one. In deference to your sudden unfamiliarity with written English, I'll rephrase.

Call For References, please.

1) You claimed that Christ:

• tried to get those that followed Him to worry more about doing good works and being charitable than about following the rules of their society
  

and

• taught specifically about being less concerned with outer appearance.
  

I, on the other hand, contend that Christ never mentioned outer appearance without also referencing internal worthiness, virtue, and obedience.

In Christ's sermons external appearance is never divorced from the need for internal worthiness and repentance.

The challenge to you is to provide at least a single reference wherein Christ taught his followers to ignore the outer appearance and superficial without at the same time emphasizing obediance, repentance, and/or purity of soul.

2) You offered up a false dichotomy in which we are asked to choose between following the counsel of the modern Church instead of "the actual laws of God".

Your mission- whether or not you choose to accept it- is to demonstrate- definitively and unequivocably- that the Laws of God and the counsel of the Church ARE NOT one and the same.

[california boy]

Your habit of selective and convenient inability to grasp the English language is both your favorite dodge and your least endearing habit of mind.

No honest reader of this thread believes I offered any such comparison.

I referenced adultery only to demonstrate the falsity of your claim that Christ held "utter distain<sic> for all of the rules put in force by the church leaders during his time".

Clearly, he did not. Christ taught obedience, repentance, and moral and sexual purity and fidelity.

He himself said that he came in fulfillment of the law, rather than its destruction.

You have offered no rebuttal to this cogent point.

You are currently ducking two CFR's, not one. In deference to your sudden unfamiliarity with written English, I'll rephrase.

Call For References, please.

1) You claimed that Christ:

• tried to get those that followed Him to worry more about doing good works and being charitable than about following the rules of their society
  

and

• taught specifically about being less concerned with outer appearance.
  

I, on the other hand, contend that Christ never mentioned outer appearance without also referencing internal worthiness, virtue, and obedience.

In Christ's sermons external appearance is never divorced from the need for internal worthiness and repentance.

The challenge to you is to provide at least a single reference wherein Christ taught his followers to ignore the outer appearance and superficial without at the same time emphasizing obediance, repentance, and/or purity of soul.

2) You offered up a false dichotomy in which we are asked to choose between following the counsel of the modern Church instead of "the actual laws of God".

Your mission- whether or not you choose to accept it- is to demonstrate- definitively and unequivocably- that the Laws of God and the counsel of the Church ARE NOT one and the same.

Does insulting peoples intelligence work for you often in winning discussion points??

Clearly Christ taught obedience, repentance, and moral and sexual purity and fidelity. I don't think I have ever stated that Christ ignored all of the laws of God. If you think that I implied that, I hope this corrects this misunderstanding.

I have provided you with a simple example of what I am talking about. If you would like to comment on what I actually said then I can respond to your statements. Please reread my posts concerning the laws of the church regarding picking corn on sunday that Christ made a point of not following. That is all my point was about. I have clearly provided a reference supporting that point. Anything beyond that is not what I was talking about. My position is exactly the same as the talk by President Hinckley by Hamba Tuhan. If you disagree with my point, then you are also disagreeing with President Hinckleys statement.

Hope that clears up for you what my point was. If not, please reread Hamba Tuhan post. That should help you.

Edited December 27, 2011 by california boy

[Sky]

It's been a few years now, and I don't have my journals on me to help get the words right, but, for what it's worth, I'll share a personal experience on this topic. Back when I was an undergrad student in America in the 90s, Pres Hinckley visited my uni for a fireside one Sunday evening. I and my LDS housemates were pretty excited, so we got to the concert hall early in order to get good seats right near the front. Pres Hinckley began the formal portion of his talk by taking out of his suit pocket a letter from a Church member and reading out a part of it. It was from a sister who wished to know what the Church policy was on earrings. She said she hoped to have a third piercing, but her husband wasn't keen. Because I was up front, I could see Pres Hinckley roll his eyes as he folded the letter back up and returned it to his pocket. And then he said something along the lines of, 'Brethren and Sisters, the Church has no policy on earrings, and I hope we never have to have such a policy. The Lord doesn't care how many holes a woman wants to put in her ears. He does care about the quality of her heart.' (If I had my journals on me, I'd be able to provide a more accurate paraphrase since I wrote it down, but that's very close.)

He then spent the rest of his talk discoursing on Matthew 23:23-24. He said that one reason we tend to focus on things that don't matter much in place of the 'weightier matters of the law' is that it makes us feel like we are doing something important when, in fact, we aren't doing anything meaningful at all. Church members, he lamented, wish to have a 'policy' about every little thing. It was a great sermon.

Then, only a few years later, Pres Hinckley introduced council against excessive piercings. At the time, I distinctly remembered his expressed desire that the Church would never have a need to issue such council and realised he must have seen it coming. It appears to me that, just as He did for ancient Israel, the Lord is willing to give His people what they demand, even when He'd rather not.

Perhaps in a perfect world, we would not need to have policies or commandments about anything, but we could simply rely on the Spirit without receiving counsel from any other person. Perhaps President Hinckley’s line of reasoning was that if we were completely in tune with the Spirit, we would heed the prompting to not get excessive piercings or a tattoo. We wouldn’t need the GA’s to get involved with it. I don’t agree with pinning all the blame on church members for wanting a policy on every little thing. Most of the time, we just want clarification and counsel pertinent to the times that we live in, and there is nothing wrong with that. I do find the two contradicting pieces of advice on the matter from President Hinckley slightly odd.

[thesometimesaint]

No one needs to be a "fashion plate" in order to serve God. OTOH wear the best you have when in service to God.

[Stargazer]

'Brethren and Sisters, the Church has no policy on earrings, and I hope we never have to have such a policy. The Lord doesn't care how many holes a woman wants to put in her ears. He does care about the quality of her heart.'

Then, only a few years later, Pres Hinckley introduced council against excessive piercings. At the time, I distinctly remembered his expressed desire that the Church would never have a need to issue such council and realised he must have seen it coming. It appears to me that, just as He did for ancient Israel, the Lord is willing to give His people what they demand, even when He'd rather not.

What I take away from this is that Pres. Hinckley hoped there would be no need to have a policy about excessive piercings, but that sadly, his hoped failed and that there was now a need.

Because the ones who were supposed to be governing themselves, weren't. And were going the way of the world.

[MorningStar]

As nice as the thought is to never judge a person by their appearance, what you choose to put on and do to your body is an advertisement of who you are. If I were in downtown Seattle and needed help, I would be more likely to approach a clean cut man in a business suit than a bald, combat boot wearing, tattoo covered man. The tattoo guy might be really nice and the business suit wearing guy could be a pervert, but unfortunately the way they look is the only thing I know about them at that point.

I think it's important to be approachable and what looks approachable changes according to culture.

[Hamba Tuhan]

What I take away from this is that Pres. Hinckley hoped there would be no need to have a policy about excessive piercings, but that sadly, his hoped failed and that there was now a need.

Because the ones who were supposed to be governing themselves, weren't. And were going the way of the world.

You may well be right. I've actually bounced back and forth several times as I've personally tried to understand what I heard Pres Hinckley say in the fireside and what I later heard him say in general priesthood meeting. Considering the pierce-and-tattoo-absolutely-everything culture that seems to have taken over my little corner of the world (several of my fellow PhD students have 'tramp stamps,' and increasingly even shop assistants have spacers in their earlobes), I'm actually quite OK that the active priests whom I advise at church aren't likely to get caught up in any of this. One of them even has a mate who has a spacer in his scrotum. <shudder> I can't help but think that there are some serious emotional voids people are trying to fill.

To me, it's a bit like the Word of Wisdom. I'm sure some of them could have a glass of wine with Christmas dinner and nothing untoward would ever come of it, but avoiding alcohol altogether has kept the obedient ones safe. The ones who've ignored this commandment have all ended up in trouble--one accused of sexual assault, one convicted of grievous bodily harm, one convicted of theft, and one left for dead in the bus interchange by his 'mates' after having consumed an entire litre of vodka.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Hamba Tuhan