If LDS can accept changing revelation…

[Wingnut]

In most cases, Maureen, the examples you cite are an issue of pride, not so much of doctrine. They usually fit into one of two scenarios:

(1) People want to know where the line is, and how close to it they can go without crossing it.

(2) People have defined their own line (often beyond the specifics of doctrine or policy) and are seeking justification by trying to force application of their own interpretation on a general scale.

I admit that there are some people who wish to be commanded in all things, because having explicit black and white lines are much easier to follow that having to use one's own head, but the Lord has specifically stated that he does not work that way:

Doctrine and Covenants 58:26

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

[Dravin]

What about the many posts that question the specifics of the WofW or tithing - like, some drink coke, some say coke is evil, some tithe on net income, others testify that gross is the only way.

What about them?

If the choices were truly left up to each individual, then members do not have to compare their level of faith based on how other members define the rules.

Wait, let me get this straight. If Person A buys Car B because Person B also has Car B then person A did not choose to buy Car B? So who chose to buy Car B? Which one is paying the lease? Back to the given example. Even if I were to decide not to drink Coke so as to conform to the expectations of those around me I am choosing to not drink coke, the choice is mine. Either that or we simply have some incompatible views on agency and choice.

That said Wingnut is correct a lot of the kerfuffle is people jostling over pride. One is not require to conform to member expectations, only the Lord's, but as we see above conforming to member expectations is still a choice. Of course even when conforming to the Lord's expectations, such as don't murder or don't participate in premarital sex one ultimately is choosing not to do those things. At least my understanding of God precludes him forcing one to follow his commandments.

So members are no more devoid of agency concerning the Word of Wisdom than Christians in general are devoid of agency concerning worshiping idols. God tells you not to and you choose to obey him (or not).

Edited June 10, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

What about the many posts that question the specifics of the WofW or tithing - like, some drink coke, some say coke is evil, some tithe on net income, others testify that gross is the only way. Everyone has there own rules based on "church rules". Some members go through pangs of guilt because they believe they are not "doing enough" or not "doing it correctly". If the choices were truly left up to each individual, then members do not have to compare their level of faith based on how other members define the rules. Define your own rules with gospel standards in mind and live by them.

M.

I would respectfully argue just the opposite. It's because trivial decisions like the ones you mention have been left up to the individual, that these questions even arise. If the Church said "stay away from Coke" or "tithe on your gross"--we'd just do it, and that'd be the end of it.

The discussions you mention are primarily, I think, attempts to pin down what "the gospel standards" really are, so that we can be fully informed as we define our own rules. The trouble is that certain Church leaders haven't always been clear in separating their own view of "gospel standards" from the actual standards endorsed and promulgated by the Church.

[beefche]

What about the many posts that question the specifics of the WofW or tithing - like, some drink coke, some say coke is evil, some tithe on net income, others testify that gross is the only way. Everyone has there own rules based on "church rules". Some members go through pangs of guilt because they believe they are not "doing enough" or not "doing it correctly". If the choices were truly left up to each individual, then members do not have to compare their level of faith based on how other members define the rules. Define your own rules with gospel standards in mind and live by them.

M.

Others have explained very well why so many posts about specifics of the WoW or tithing. I would like to add another perspecitve.

It is MY decision on how I tithe or if Coke is against the WoW. However, sometimes in making decisions, I would like input from others on what they choose and why. Doesn't mean I want to be like them or even that I want someone to tell me exactly what to do. It is called "counseling" with others. I do the same thing when trying to decide on buying a house or car or even getting new glasses. I get other's input and then make my own decision.

And let me take this a step further. I'll use an example to explain. When Pres Hinckley said that women should only wear one set of earrings and not have other piercings, I chose to follow his counsel. It was and is not a commandment. Many women (and men for that matter) are in the church and have piercings. There is a choice. Just because I choose to follow Pres Hinckley's counsel doesn't mean I didn't choose for myself. This principle applies to following the prophet on other matters as well. I don't drink coffee or tea because I choose not to drink it. I can choose to drink it and there are consequences (in regards to church temple worthiness). But ultimately just because a prophet tells us a command or counsel and we choose to follow doesn't mean it is blindly or that we have no choice in the matter.

[Hemidakota]

What about them?

Wait, let me get this straight. If Person A buys Car B because Person B also has Car B then person A did not choose to buy Car B? So who chose to buy Car B? Which one is paying the lease? Back to the given example. Even if I were to decide not to drink Coke so as to conform to the expectations of those around me I am choosing to not drink coke, the choice is mine. Either that or we simply have some incompatible views on agency and choice.

That said Wingnut is correct a lot of the kerfuffle is people jostling over pride. One is not require to conform to member expectations, only the Lord's, but as we see above conforming to member expectations is still a choice. Of course even when conforming to the Lord's expectations, such as don't murder or don't participate in premarital sex one ultimately is choosing not to do those things. At least my understanding of God precludes him forcing one to follow his commandments.

So members are no more devoid of agency concerning the Word of Wisdom than Christians in general are devoid of agency concerning worshiping idols. God tells you not to and you choose to obey him (or not).

I have to disagree with your assumption of even Wingnut with two reasonings. There are members or non-member who does not spend the time in researching the WoW material and understands what is being presented. A simple question of comparison of the poster's comparison what he/she does today versus what was received as revelatory from the hands of Joseph Smith by the Lord.

__________________

Edited June 10, 2010 by Hemidakota

[Dravin]

There are members or non-member who does not spend the time in researching the WoW material and understands of what is being presented.

And? Your comment is a non-sequitur. You might as well have objected to my statement because cheeseburgers often have condiments.

A simple question of comparison of the poster's comparison what he/she does today versus what was received as revelatory from the hands of Joseph Smith by the Lord.

And this part is just nonsensical.

[Snow]

And let me take this a step further. I'll use an example to explain. When Pres Hinckley said that women should only wear one set of earrings and not have other piercings, I chose to follow his counsel.

Actually, that is NOT what he said. What he said is that the Brethren discourage multiple piercings but take no position on single ear piercings.

The language used it revealing:

"Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. 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."

Clearly the issue is not one of morality (right and wrong) vis-a-vis piercings else they would have taken a stance against piercings generally - either that or they lacked the courage to take a position against what is wrong for fear of offending the membership (but I ignore that possibility for now).

... and why are multiple piercings opposed? Clearly because they are, in the eyes of President Hinckley or the Brethren, unattractive. Frankly, I do not take my standards of beauty from the Church. I like what I like and I know it when I see it. Some girls look good in multiple piercings and some look bad in ugly single earrings. It's not an issue of right and wrong. It's one of taste and the Church wants its members to present squeaky clean, because the image sells, says I. While I think political correctness serves a purpose, it's application is not my highest priority.

[beefche]

Good for you, Snow. I never said it was a moral issue. I said it was counsel from Pres Hinckley and up to us to choose to take it or not. I chose to take it and follow his counsel. You can choose otherwise and still remain a faithful, temple worthy member.

[Snow]

Good for you, Snow. I never said it was a moral issue. I said it was counsel from Pres Hinckley and up to us to choose to take it or not. I chose to take it and follow his counsel. You can choose otherwise and still remain a faithful, temple worthy member.

I wasn't passing judgment on your view, rather I was pointing out that your characterization of what President Hinckley said was inaccurate or at least imprecise. He didn't say that women should only where one ear piercings but rather that he abstained from taking a position on whether or not one ear piercings was acceptable or to be discouraged.

... I find it noteworthy that he choose to characterize it all as or imply it was an aesthetic issue.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Snow

[pam]

Though according to True to the Faith, it does mention only one pair of modest earrings. So Beefche may not be wrong. I actually remember him mentioning it in one of his talks as well.

Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings.

Those who choose to disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. They will someday regret their decision.

The Apostle Paul taught of the significance of our bodies and the danger of purposefully defiling them: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16–17).

[pam]

Here we go:

We--the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve--have taken the position, and I quote, that "the Church discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings."

Depends on how you interpret this. You could take it to mean that they don't take a position on the number of earrings you wear in each ear..or they don't take a position on allowing the piercing for one pair of earrings.

But if you add to what is said in True to the Faith, I would take it to mean one pair of earrings.

Edited June 11, 2010 by pam

[Snow]

Though according to True to the Faith, it does mention only one pair of modest earrings. So Beefche may not be wrong. I actually remember him mentioning it in one of his talks as well.

>>>Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the piercing of the body except for medical purposes. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings.<<<

That even a more strident denunciation of pierced ears. It's clearly discourages all piercings unless for a medical purpose. For those that choose to ignore the counsel and will pierce their ears anyway, they are encouraged to be have one set of modest pierces ears.

[Hemidakota]

Though according to True to the Faith, it does mention only one pair of modest earrings. So Beefche may not be wrong. I actually remember him mentioning it in one of his talks as well.

I also mentioned this to the youth. You are right.

[Hemidakota]

Others have explained very well why so many posts about specifics of the WoW or tithing. I would like to add another perspecitve.

It is MY decision on how I tithe or if Coke is against the WoW. However, sometimes in making decisions, I would like input from others on what they choose and why. Doesn't mean I want to be like them or even that I want someone to tell me exactly what to do. It is called "counseling" with others. I do the same thing when trying to decide on buying a house or car or even getting new glasses. I get other's input and then make my own decision.

And let me take this a step further. I'll use an example to explain. When Pres Hinckley said that women should only wear one set of earrings and not have other piercings, I chose to follow his counsel. It was and is not a commandment. Many women (and men for that matter) are in the church and have piercings. There is a choice. Just because I choose to follow Pres Hinckley's counsel doesn't mean I didn't choose for myself. This principle applies to following the prophet on other matters as well. I don't drink coffee or tea because I choose not to drink it. I can choose to drink it and there are consequences (in regards to church temple worthiness). But ultimately just because a prophet tells us a command or counsel and we choose to follow doesn't mean it is blindly or that we have no choice in the matter.

Do you remember his talk concerning the five 'B's?

• Be clean. Youth are to avoid pornography, taking the name of God in vain, illicit drugs, destructive entertainment, tattoos, body piercing (other than piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings), early dating, and every kind of sexual transgression. Youth should choose friends who will be a positive influence on them.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Perspectives