Mormons being distracted by body/perfectionism issues?

[Marginal Gains]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When I said 'you have no idea' i was using it in the 'you don't actually know what you are talking about' way.  And he confirmed that he doesn't actually know that the women stopped wearing earrings out of shame.  He's projecting feelings and emotions onto those women that they never confirmed, and then pretending like it's fact, when it's just his opinions and assumptions.  

There was an article recently about a story a (I think) General Authority told about a young man who had been dating a young woman and who thought the relationship was headed towards marriage. This young woman wore multiple earrings and when Hinckley said what he said, this young man waited to see the reaction of his love interest. When, after a period of time, it became obvious she wasn’t about to remove all but one earring, the young man concluded that she wasn’t the one for him. So perhaps the young women in question took the earrings out in the hopes of attracting a husband?

*I’ll see if I can find the article

Edited September 13, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh brother you are impossible...conclude whatever supports your perspective.  If you need/want to believe that Mormon culture had no influence on why Mormon women do not wear multiple earrings be my guest. 

Johnnie stop being the perpetual victim and acting like everyone is always out to get you and just answer questions honestly.  

I asked whether or not you knew women who had stopped wearing multiple earrings out of shame and you said yes.  But the truth is that while you know women who stopped wearing multiple earrings, you don't know why they made that choice.  You're projecting and guessing.  You don't know.

I personally stopped wearing multiple earrings because I wanted to follow the counsel of the prophet.  I had nothing to do with shame.  From my perspective, it seems obvious that women could make that decision for a lot of different reasons.  Understanding that has nothing to do with 'supporting my perspective.'  It has nothing to do with not believing that Mormon culture has influence on mormon women.  It has everything to do with not assigning motives or emotions to people when 1) there are multiple valid emotions or motives that might be at play, and 2) they never confirmed their motives or emotions to me.

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

There was an article recently about a story a (I think) General Authority told about a young man who had been dating a young woman and who thought the relationship was headed towards marriage. This young woman wore multiple earrings and when Hinckley said what he said, this young man waited to see the reaction of his love interest. When, after a period of time, it became obvious she wasn’t about to remove all but one earring, the young man concluded that she wasn’t the one for him. So perhaps the young women in question took the earrings out in the hopes of attracting a husband?

*I’ll see if I can find the article

I think I do remember that story.  Like you have implied, there are lots of different reasons that a mormon woman might decide to have multiple earrings, or take them out.  Without actually talking to the woman being discussed it would be odd to just assume we knew what her motivations are.  

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

There was an article recently about a story a (I think) General Authority told about a young man who had been dating a young woman and who thought the relationship was headed towards marriage. This young woman wore multiple earrings and when Hinckley said what he said, this young man waited to see the reaction of his love interest. When, after a period of time, it became obvious she wasn’t about to remove all but one earring, the young man concluded that she wasn’t the one for him. So perhaps the young women in question took the earrings out in the hopes of attracting a husband?

*I’ll see if I can find the article

it's from Elder Bednar. This whole situation to me is crazy, that story came out years ago, and Pres. Hinckley's counsel came out even before that. Yet we that Al Fox Carraway telling everyone not to judge each other and people have tatts and that kind of thing and she's hugely popular with the Saints and to me kind of undoing what Pres. Hinckley and Elder Bednar have been saying. I know they say not to be critical of each other but it's funny to me, just two different messages

[Marginal Gains]

Just now, bluebell said:

I think I do remember that story.  Like you have implied, there are lots of different reasons that a mormon woman might decide to have multiple earrings, or take them out.  Without actually talking to the woman being discussed it would be odd to just assume we knew what her motivations are.  

Unfortunately, what President Hinckley did when he made that statement about earrings, was make multiple earrings a sign of unworthiness.

It became a visual sign of a woman’s level of obedience and members generally would think bad of a woman wearing more than one pair. Members, being members, are want to conjure up all sorts of salacious ponderings based upon seeing a tattoo or a second pair of earrings or a shirt that isn’t white etc. In my opinion Presidents need to be very careful what they directly or indirectly designate as “sinful”, as is ably demonstrated by this thread.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Within Mormonism culture there is an undercurrent that is always present...eyes always watching what each other is doing...always on watch for some misstep by a member of the ward or church.  Its subtle, its often unsaid, but its there...always lurking and watching what other Mormon's are doing....the quiet silent judgement of fellow Mormons watching each other to make sure no one steps out of line or does something that the church might disapprove of. It's particularly present when a Mormon you might know missteps...usually then its seen as an anonymous tip to the relief society president or the bishop or elders quorum president so that the "sin" might be corrected.  I've personally seen it felt it in Starbucks...when I've seen members of the church seeking their morning coffee...looking over their shoulders...always aware of the fact that they are being watched, might get caught.  I experienced it when I was in the bishopric, when members reported other members behavior to me.  I experienced it in the High council when members turned in other members for their behavior and I've experienced myself when even after I left the church I was turned in by members who didn't yet know that I had left...so I know its real...and I've been on both ends of this cultural undercurrent

Honestly I am surprised.

Must be a local thing. NEVER in 38 years of membership, have I seen this once. Honestly. Former Bishop, High Council, etc!!! Never heard of anyone turning anyone in.

Heard many confessions, never a turn in as you describe.

California must be different??

Seriously?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Unfortunately, what President Hinckley did when he made that statement about earrings, was make multiple earrings a sign of unworthiness.

It became a visual sign of a woman’s level of obedience and members generally would think bad of a woman wearing more than one pair. Members, being members, are want to conjure up all sorts of salacious ponderings based upon seeing a tattoo or a second pair of earrings or a shirt that isn’t white etc. In my opinion Presidents need to be very careful what they directly or indirectly designate as “sinful”, as is ably demonstrated by this thread.

I don't think it became a sign of unworthiness.  If that was true, it would be weird that I know women who are serving in leadership positions at the ward and stake level, with more than one set of piercings/tattoos.  Bishops and stake presidents don't often call people who are unworthy to such callings.

Pres. Hinckley never called multiple earrings (or even tattoos) 'sins'.  He said that he and the counsel of the 12 discourage any piercings other than the minimal (meaning 1) piercing of the ears.  That's as strongly worded as he got-'we discourage.'  

 

[Marginal Gains]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it became a sign of unworthiness.  If that was true, it would be weird that I know women who are serving in leadership positions at the ward and stake level, with more than one set of piercings/tattoos.  Bishops and stake presidents don't often call people who are unworthy to such callings.

Pres. Hinckley never called multiple earrings (or even tattoos) 'sins'.  He said that he and the counsel of the 12 discourage any piercings other than the minimal (meaning 1) piercing of the ears.  That's as strongly worded as he got-'we discourage.'  

 

You may well be correct. But look at the content of the talk within which the comment on earrings is placed. It’s placement alongside drugs and virtue makes it part of the whole talk about worthiness.

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.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[strappinglad]

Human beings are most interesting , especially when it come to herd mentality and oneupsmanship. A percentage of people carry the gene which says to them , if one is good, two is better and 20 even better. This applies to pill popping and piercings . I have seen some people who literally jangle when they walk. I recently observed a trend in my ward with the ladies. They were all walking on super high platform heeled shoes. Suddenly there was a complete change and now most are on flats. What happened? Did fashion change? Did the prophet admonish them? Did they finally figure out the value of comfort over style?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You may well be correct. But look at the content of the talk within which the comment on earrings is placed. It’s placement alongside drugs and virtue makes it part of the whole talk about worthiness.

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.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

 

I don't think the talk equates taking drugs and having more than one set of earrings.  Most people don't even remember what else was in the talk other than earrings so I don't think that's influencing anyone.  I've read it multiple times through the years (due to these kinds of conversations) and even I don't remember everything it talks about.  And most members don't have as much interaction with the talk as we do.

[mfbukowski]

Quite honestly as a young man who is himself a convert, I would have found a woman with multiple piercings etc interesting if I met her at church.

I would have suspected that there is an interesting story of conversion and strength of character beneath it all.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly as a young man who is himself a convert, I would have found a woman with multiple piercings etc interesting if I met her at church.

I would have suspected that there is an interesting story of conversion and strength of character beneath it all.

I think there's value in both reactions (being drawn to those who are comfortable going against the flow and being drawn to those who follow the counsel of the prophet).  I don't necessarily think either personality is better or worse than the other.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

He just said he has some idea, how do you rephrase that as he has no idea? 

He was dead on! I posted something about this on this thread when I mentioned that I was in a Stake Primary meeting and separated in groups with a woman (Stake Primary Leader) wearing two sets. It was during the time I had let mine close after Pres. Hinckley asked that women only wear one set. After that you didn't see many women sporting them. I was deeply TBM I guess, because I was taken aback when I saw this Stake Leader defying the prophet, but deep down pretty impressed that she did her own thinking. 

I think Bluebell is wrong, or lived in a state that didn't conform as well as Utah did. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think there's value in both reactions (being drawn to those who are comfortable going against the flow and being drawn to those who follow the counsel of the prophet).  I don't necessarily think either personality is better or worse than the other.

But note in my example I was NOT choosing against the prophet- I was assuming she was like me, a convert who actually had a life BEFORE church.

You can't exactly follow a prophet if you do not know one exists.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But note in my example I was NOT choosing against the prophet- I was assuming she was like me, a convert who actually had a life BEFORE church.

You can't exactly follow a prophet if you do not know one exists.

Because piercings close or otherwise don't need to have earrings in them, if you met a girl who was wearing multiple earrings, that would be a current choice and not a consequence of choices made before conversion.  

I've had five piercings in the past (the last one I actually got on my mission), but no one would think that I had multiple piercings now because no one counts the number of closed holes, only the ones still in use.  

 

 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He was dead on! I posted something about this on this thread when I mentioned that I was in a Stake Primary meeting and separated in groups with a woman (Stake Primary Leader) wearing two sets. It was during the time I had let mine close after Pres. Hinckley asked that women only wear one set. After that you didn't see many women sporting them. I was deeply TBM I guess, because I was taken aback when I saw this Stake Leader defying the prophet, but deep down pretty impressed that she did her own thinking. 

I think Bluebell is wrong, or lived in a state that didn't conform as well as Utah did. 

I'm wrong about JC not actually knowing if the women he was referring to removed their earrings because of shame?   

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm wrong about JC not actually knowing if the women he was referring to removed their earrings because of shame?   

I am truly sorry I read it wrong, thinking you believed that JC couldn't know if LDS women took off their earrings for other reasons than the church said not to wear the second pair. I just figured you lived in Montana at the time and didn't see it happening. And feel it was different here in Utah. But set me straight, or it looks like you already have.  

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I personally stopped wearing multiple earrings because I wanted to follow the counsel of the prophet.  I had nothing to do with shame.  

BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform.

Oh my gosh

A mind reader now?  And you do not believe in God because you have no evidence for God but make statements like that without evidence??

Shall I tell you what is really happening in YOUR thoughts or why you REALLY left the church?

I can't believe YOU actually said that.   Seriously bad dude.

Do you always know what women are thinking and expect them to believe you?  Really rude and sexist in my opinion.  I am surprised.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I am truly sorry I read it wrong, thinking you believed that JC couldn't know if LDS women took off their earrings for other reasons than the church said not to wear the second pair. I just figured you lived in Montana at the time and didn't see it happening. And feel it was different here in Utah. But set me straight, or it looks like you already have.  

Johnny and i's only disagreement in this thread has been about whether or not he actually knows women who stopped wearing multiple earrings because they felt shamed.

I first asked him-"Do you have personal experience with women who have been harshly judged for such aesthetics?   I have no doubt that some women have felt shamed for such choices, but I have never met any personally who have, and there are quite a few women who ignore that counsel.  That's why I asked if you personally knew women who are being shamed for those choices."

He replied-"Those that I am aware of caved to pressure, complied and removed their extra earrings after being silently shamed."

I asked a clarifying question-"So you don't personally know of any active mormon women with more than one ear piercing or tattoo but have talked to those who used to have multiple earrings and know that they removed their earrings only after being shamed?  Is that what you're saying? (Just want to make sure i'm understanding you right)."

And he answered-"That is correct."

At that point I let the conversation drop because it had come to a conclusion.  But, then Calm asked one more question-"Did they actually tell you this or are you assuming because you observed it?"

And that's where everything unraveled a bit because it turned out that, despite JC previously saying that he knew women who had taken out their earrings because they 'caved after being silently shamed,' none of the women had actually told him that.  He didn't know why they had taken out their earrings, he was just guessing, based on his views of the church.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

BB, It had everything to do with the societal pressure you would have faced had you failed to conform and "Follow the Prophet"  Yes I'm sure part of your motivation for removing your extra earrings was to follow the prophet but you also knew that you would pay a societal price for not following the prophet...you would have been subjected to silent public shaming and judgment from the Mormon undercurrent had you kept your original number of multiple earrings.  You did not make the decision to comply in a vacuum...you caved to societal pressure to conform.

Why do you feel so comfortable telling other people what their motivations for choices are?  It's kinda weird.  Do you really think that highly of yourself?

[mfbukowski]

On 9/12/2017 at 10:54 AM, MorningStar said:

Satan made me eat ice cream for lunch yesterday.  

He does that to me too.

The problem is that first I eat the lunch and THEN have the ice cream anyway.

I mean I don't want the ice cream to spoil my appetite, right?  Gotta eat some nutritious food and not just live on ice cream right?

It's the healthy thing to do, after all.  

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why do you feel so comfortable telling other people what their motivations for choices are?  It's kinda weird.  Do you really think that highly of yourself?

I suspected some push back on this...so let me get this right...you as a strong independent woman make the choice to wear multiple earrings in your ears...and then because Gordon Hinckley says not to wear them you removed them without a second thought?   What your peer group would have thought of you didn't factor in to your decision nor the  mark you would carry within your peer group for not following the prophet didn't factor into your decision... not one wit? Really?

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I suspected some push back on this...so let me get this right...you as a strong independent woman make the choice to wear multiple earrings in your ears...and then because Gordon Hinckley says not to wear them you removed them without a second thought?   What your peer group would have thought of you didn't factor in to your decision nor the  mark you would carry within your peer group for not following the prophet didn't factor into your decision... not one wit? Really?

Perhaps you could just believe Bluebell when she tells you what her motivations were. 

Personally, I admire her for her decision to follow the prophet's suggestion.

Edited September 13, 2017 by ksfisher