Socially Doctrinal Vs Doctrinal

[Duncan]

I didn't mean to sound negative.  What I meant was that a lot of members don't care what the church has to say about certain things, so they don't bother to check to see what the church actual has to say (hope that makes sense).

 

I knew the church's stance on vasectomies in high school.  It's probably due to being a girl and just generally being more interested in all things marriage and children than boys would be at that age, but it was common knowledge in my peer group that the church had a stance on birth control, so it seemed obvious to everyone that they would have a stance on vasectomies as part of that.  We were too young to consult the handbook (or even know about it's existence) but we had ample access to adults who knew so that wasn't ever an issue.

 

 

it's true, I honestly can't imagine going to a Bishop to discuss with him about a medical procedure, unless of course he was the Dr. doing it! My friend was a Bishop and he got snipped prior to serving. I can see stuff like this leading other people into thinking that we are cultish if medical procedures have to be approved by some leader

[JarMan]

 

Do you have a problem with mentioning abortion in connection with anything else because it is such an emotional issue?  In no way did I suggest that the two were equivalent.  In fact I went out of my way to make the point that there were only some ways they were related and as far as I am concerned, here the only one intended by me to be used is that they can both be lifealtering decisions and thus should both be taken with great care and caution.  Since I myself have undergone sterilization, I am hardly prejudiced against it.

 

 

The same moral interest that exists such that church leaders encourage people to get married and have children in the first place.  Saying that the decisions are private doesn't mean that there is no counsel that should be given for them.  Having sex is something extremely intimate and private and yet the Church is quite happy to give us moral counsel about when and with whom we should and shouldn't be having it with (in marriage with our spouses and no one else).

 

 

You're not appreciating the similarity between surgical sterilization and other forms of birth control, which is (obviously) that they are both birth control. So the idea that "the same moral interest that exists such that church leaders encourage people to get married and have children in the first place" is a reason not to have surgical sterilization just doesn't hold up. Otherwise we would be counselled against all forms of birth control. What we have is counsel purely against a surgical procedure. We use to be counselled not to have cosmetic surgery, as well. I don't know if it was ever in the handbook or not. But the point is that there is no moral issue associated with a surgical procedure, so the church should just stay neutral about it. Same goes for piercings and tattoos. No moral issue except the fake one about obedience to the Lord's anointed.

[JarMan]

it's true, I honestly can't imagine going to a Bishop to discuss with him about a medical procedure, unless of course he was the Dr. doing it! My friend was a Bishop and he got snipped prior to serving. I can see stuff like this leading other people into thinking that we are cultish if medical procedures have to be approved by some leader

 

Yes. Particularly when the answer we're likely to get is that we need to "be obedient" to our leaders.

 

I have a friend who used to have two sets of piercings in her ears. When she interviewed with the SP to get her temple recommend the SP called her out regarding the issue of sustaining the leaders. The implication was that she couldn't get a temple recommend if she didn't remove one set of earrings because she otherwise wouldn't be sustaining the brethren. That type of abuse of power infuriates me.

[Duncan]

Yes. Particularly when the answer we're likely to get is that we need to "be obedient" to our leaders.

 

I have a friend who used to have two sets of piercings in her ears. When she interviewed with the SP to get her temple recommend the SP called her out regarding the issue of sustaining the leaders. The implication was that she couldn't get a temple recommend if she didn't remove one set of earrings because she otherwise wouldn't be sustaining the brethren. That type of abuse of power infuriates me.

 

 

it's interesting to me that this sister Fox? the tattoo lady gets attention for sharing her story and talking about not judging others whereas 10 years ago Pres. Hinckley came out against tattoos-it seems weird to me that on one hand we should be faithful for not getting tattoos, earrings and the like and yet we will glady attend firesides of someone who did (probably after Pres. Hinckley spoke out against it and I am sure Sis. Fox is all that and a bag of chips ). It's like we publicly celebrate people who don't fit the norm but we don't celebrate the norm and people who conform. Sports figures are applauded for being Mormon, like Steve Young (remember that VHS tape of Elder Ballard interviewing him in the 90's?) and yet other sports figures are applauded for not playing on sunday, like do we or don't we play on sunday?

 

it's an old problem as the prodigal son et al found out!

[rockpond]

Yes. Particularly when the answer we're likely to get is that we need to "be obedient" to our leaders.

 

I have a friend who used to have two sets of piercings in her ears. When she interviewed with the SP to get her temple recommend the SP called her out regarding the issue of sustaining the leaders. The implication was that she couldn't get a temple recommend if she didn't remove one set of earrings because she otherwise wouldn't be sustaining the brethren. That type of abuse of power infuriates me.

 

It's one thing for the SP to bring up the issue and make the point but I certainly hope he didn't deny a temple recommend because of that.  I'm pretty sure that goes against the handbook.

[JarMan]

It's one thing for the SP to bring up the issue and make the point but I certainly hope he didn't deny a temple recommend because of that.  I'm pretty sure that goes against the handbook.

She took the earrings out. So we'll never know what would have happened had she decided to keep them in.

[Calm]

it's interesting to me that this sister Fox? the tattoo lady gets attention for sharing her story and talking about not judging others whereas 10 years ago Pres. Hinckley came out against tattoos-it seems weird to me that on one hand we should be faithful for not getting tattoos, earrings and the like and yet we will glady attend firesides of someone who did (probably after Pres. Hinckley spoke out against it and I am sure Sis. Fox is all that and a bag of chips ). It's like we publicly celebrate people who don't fit the norm but we don't celebrate the norm and people who conform. 

Since she is a convert and got her tattoos before becoming a member and possibly before ever hearing of Pres. Hinckley, I see it as more of attempting to demonstrate not only that we are welcoming to all no matter where they have been, but to encourage members themselves not to judge people based on where they have been.  There are plenty of "norms" who have been in the Church forever who seem to be celebrated to me.

[Stone holm]

it's interesting to me that this sister Fox? the tattoo lady gets attention for sharing her story and talking about not judging others whereas 10 years ago Pres. Hinckley came out against tattoos-it seems weird to me that on one hand we should be faithful for not getting tattoos, earrings and the like and yet we will glady attend firesides of someone who did (probably after Pres. Hinckley spoke out against it and I am sure Sis. Fox is all that and a bag of chips ). It's like we publicly celebrate people who don't fit the norm but we don't celebrate the norm and people who conform. Sports figures are applauded for being Mormon, like Steve Young (remember that VHS tape of Elder Ballard interviewing him in the 90's?) and yet other sports figures are applauded for not playing on sunday, like do we or don't we play on sunday?

 

it's an old problem as the prodigal son et al found out!

You are sounding a bit like the other son, you know.

[Duncan]

Since she is a convert and got her tattoos before becoming a member and possibly before ever hearing of Pres. Hinckley, I see it as more of attempting to demonstrate not only that we are welcoming to all no matter where they have been, but to encourage members themselves not to judge people based on where they have been.  There are plenty of "norms" who have been in the Church forever who seem to be celebrated to me.

 

 

that gives me pause for reflection!

[Duncan]

You are sounding a bit like the other son, you know.

 

 

ha! well, I may sound like him however...I have had many come to myself moments!

[followerofemmanuel]

 

Beards are banned

Right hand to take the sacrament

Don't stand up for any hymns

White bread for the sacrament - Gosh I wish they would stick to white bread.  We get some very goofy breads sometimes, with seeds, and other stuff.

Women don't pray in sacrament/general conference (former was ended in 1978, latter in 2012)

Jesus was born on 6th April

 

Just wondering if this was true and if anyone knows why one should  not  "stand up for any hymns".  Thanks

[Duncan]

Just wondering if this was true and if anyone knows why one should  not  "stand up for any hymns".  Thanks

 

 

we stand every sunday to sing one of the Hymns, don't we do the same in general conference?

[followerofemmanuel]

we stand every sunday to sing one of the Hymns, don't we do the same in general conference?

 

Thanks Duncan.  I attended a service at an LDS church and we did not stand up to sing.  I did not think of that as a negative in anyway, in fact I never really thought about it.  Just seeing this post made me remember that we did not stand and I was curious to learn why.

Edited November 27, 2013 by followerofemmanuel

[canard78]

Just wondering if this was true and if anyone knows why one should  not  "stand up for any hymns".  Thanks

 

In UK we always used to stand up during the intermediate hymn in many congregations. About a decade a visiting General Authority said, in a regional conference, something like "please don't make standing up a required part of the ceremony." He meant to not make it ritualistic, rather than trying to ban it. But people took it to the extreme and now never stand up for any hymns.

[Ahab]

In UK we always used to stand up during the intermediate hymn in many congregations. About a decade a visiting General Authority said, in a regional conference, something like "please don't make standing up a required part of the ceremony." He meant to not make it ritualistic, rather than trying to ban it. But people took it to the extreme and now never stand up for any hymns.

I also think he meant that if some people stood up to sing a hymn it should not be considered a requirement for everyone to stand up.  I often stay seated even when many around me choose to stand up and it would be a good thing for others to realize I am not doing a bad thing by choosing to stay seated.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Ahab

[bluebell]

Just wondering if this was true and if anyone knows why one should not "stand up for any hymns". Thanks

We still stand for the rest hymn in my ward. I have no idea where the idea that it's now banned comes from.

[canard78]

We still stand for the rest hymn in my ward. I have no idea where the idea that it's now banned comes from.

 

It's not... people just think it is in UK.

 

See here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62255-socially-doctrinal-vs-doctrinal/page-5#entry1209321266