Exceptions to the gospel for polynesian culture.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I've noticed that the Church seems to make a lot of concessions to members of Polynesian heritage that normal members would would not be allowed to do.

the one main example includes tribal tattoos. Are there any other examples from other cultures or is the polynesian culture the lone exception?

[unixknight]

There's no hard rule against body art in the Church. It's discouraged, but so is drinking Pepsi.

[Guest gopecon]

I knew of a sister missionary from the islands who was allowed to wear a nose ring while serving in the U.S. I didn't understand that one. Missionaries are expected to maintain their appearance so as not to distract from their message, yet she was allowed to keep a facial piercing while serving in a culture that sees facial piercings as edgy or hardcore. If she had stayed in her own culture I might have understood, but it was wierd seeing that here in America.

I think that expected dress "codes" can be somewhat flexible depending on where you live, although there's probably not a huge amount of variance. As far as the tatoos go, there's only so much that the church can do to stop that. Once tatooed, you can't withhold priesthood or temple blessings from people. They may talk less about it there than in the US, but that's probably because the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks of pushing the issue.

[Guest gopecon]

Unixknight - I have to disagree about their being a hard rule about tatoos. It's been addressed in Conference, and I believe it's also in the Strength of Youth pamphlets. It's a clear standard, but unlike the Word of Wisdom, you can't just stop and be ink free. They are permanent. There's no point in harping on this too much. Many members have them from times when they were less active or not yet baptized. I think its wise to not carry on about something when the effect could be to make uncomfortable or drive those who already have tatoos away. They should be welcomed like anyone else - because we all have our flaws.

[unixknight]

Unixknight - I have to disagree about their being a hard rule about tatoos. It's been addressed in Conference, and I believe it's also in the Strength of Youth pamphlets. It's a clear standard, but unlike the Word of Wisdom, you can't just stop and be ink free. They are permanent.

I get what you're saying, but I just can't see how it can be a firm rule in one place and flexible in another. The whole point of having a single, unified Church is that the Laws of God are the same everywhere, for everyone. Either it's a hard rule or it isn't, and if it is, then we'd ALL be expected to follow it. Period.

I have heard of places within the U.S. where Stake Presidents won't give a temple recommend to someone who has tattoos. I say they're wrong to do that. In no recommend interview I've ever had was I asked if I had them (and I don't anyway). The rules are the same for everyone or they aren't rules.

Look at it this way... When you show up at the Temple if you have a recommend then it doesn't matter who issued it, as long as it was someone with the proper authority to do so. Do they all follow the same standard or don't they? Does the Temple President pull people aside and make sure that they pass some unique set of standards for that particular temple?

Of course not, and if something like that did happen then I'd have grave misgivings about that President. (Unless, of course, he noticed something that WOULD be consistently a problem everywhere. In that case he'd just be doing his job.)

Edited July 28, 2011 by unixknight

[Guest gopecon]

Sometimes we seem to get rules and temple requirements confused. We may be able to honestly get into the temple while participating in some things, but that does not make them appropriate (inappropriate entertainment and foul language come to mind, and there are others). The problem is that sometimes we are given principles and left to sort out the details for ourselves. There are right answers, but the Lord has not chosen to have His servants spell everything out. Take eating meat sparingly as counseled in the W of W. 16 oz. steaks with every meal would probably be a clear violation of that standard, but there is no line drawn, we are to do our best with it and answer to God when the time comes. Likewise the prohibition on tatoos stems from scriptures that state that our body is a temple. There are probably a lot of ways that we can neglect our bodies that would be considered sinful, but we are generally left to sort it out on our own. Would bishops want to have to enforce minimum weight standards before giving recommends?

P.S. I'd have a hard time believing the temple recommend being withheld for tatoos, if I hadn't heard about them being withheld for men with beards (at least a beard can be shaved!).

[MarginOfError]

I get what you're saying, but I just can't see how it can be a firm rule in one place and flexible in another. The whole point of having a single, unified Church is that the Laws of God are the same everywhere, for everyone. Either it's a hard rule or it isn't, and if it is, then we'd ALL be expected to follow it. Period.

I have heard of places within the U.S. where Stake Presidents won't give a temple recommend to someone who has tattoos. I say they're wrong to do that. In no recommend interview I've ever had was I asked if I had them (and I don't anyway). The rules are the same for everyone or they aren't rules.

Look at it this way... When you show up at the Temple if you have a recommend then it doesn't matter who issued it, as long as it was someone with the proper authority to do so. Do they all follow the same standard or don't they? Does the Temple President pull people aside and make sure that they pass some unique set of standards for that particular temple?

Of course not, and if something like that did happen then I'd have grave misgivings about that President. (Unless, of course, he noticed something that WOULD be consistently a problem everywhere. In that case he'd just be doing his job.)

But is the 'no tattoo' thing a rule based standard, or is it a principle based standard?

[RipplecutBuddha]

I get what you're saying, but I just can't see how it can be a firm rule in one place and flexible in another. The whole point of having a single, unified Church is that the Laws of God are the same everywhere, for everyone. Either it's a hard rule or it isn't, and if it is, then we'd ALL be expected to follow it. Period.

This would only make sense if we ALL were raised with the same standards to begin with. In pacific cultures, tattoos are an expected thing. Some are even handed down within families. Would you have people with tattoos removed from the church, or prevented from being baptized...because they didn't follow the standards of a church they didn't belong to at the time? I seriously doubt that you would want this. The point is that all of us fall short of the standards of the church in one way or another. Yet we are to forgive as Christ has instructed us. Why? Because he seeks to forgive us all, but he cannot so long as we judge others this way.

I have heard of places within the U.S. where Stake Presidents won't give a temple recommend to someone who has tattoos. I say they're wrong to do that. In no recommend interview I've ever had was I asked if I had them (and I don't anyway). The rules are the same for everyone or they aren't rules.

I disagree with this as well. Stake Presidents shouldn't be adding their own questions or standards to the recommend interview process...however if they feel guided by the spirit to act in that way, who am I to say they're wrong...maybe the person planned to get more work done on their tattoos after getting a recommend and the spirit told the SP that such was the case. We just can't judge from outside.

Look at it this way... When you show up at the Temple if you have a recommend then it doesn't matter who issued it, as long as it was someone with the proper authority to do so. Do they all follow the same standard or don't they? Does the Temple President pull people aside and make sure that they pass some unique set of standards for that particular temple?

Of course not, and if something like that did happen then I'd have grave misgivings about that President. (Unless, of course, he noticed something that WOULD be consistently a problem everywhere. In that case he'd just be doing his job.)

In short, those of us that know better, ought to follow our knowlege. We cannot judge someone against a standard they were unaware of. At the same time, we cannot use their situation as an excuse to go out and get a tattoo either.

I heard it explained this way, would you care to see graffiti on the SLC temple? Some graffiti is very good from the artist's perspective and it can take amazing skill. But does it belong on the temple?

Our bodies are a temple; a place for the Spirit of the Lord to dwell. We ought to regard our bodies as such for several reasons beyond tattoos, but again...not all cultures would agree with this mindset. Some of the most spiritual people I have known from childhood have had tattoos.

[unixknight]

Sometimes we seem to get rules and temple requirements confused. We may be able to honestly get into the temple while participating in some things, but that does not make them appropriate (inappropriate entertainment and foul language come to mind, and there are others).

This is true, and I wouldn't argue that getting a tattoo is a good thing. At the same time, there's a difference between being counseled to avoid something and being told it's a sin. We're counseled to avoid Pepsi, but avoiding coffee is a firm rule. Does that mean I'd endorse members going out and guzzling Pepsi? No... but at the same I think there tends to be a somewhat litigious attitude in Church culture that tries to treat everything as a black and white issue.

I cannot and will not accept the idea that getting or having a tattoo is a sin as long as different groups are held to different standards.

P.S. I'd have a hard time believing the temple recommend being withheld for tatoos, if I hadn't heard about them being withheld for men with beards (at least a beard can be shaved!).

I should have posted a link. Apparently the justification was that since Temple Presidency gets the final say on who can attend, this one was using that authority to ban people that had tattoos. I got the impression that it didn't matter whether the tattoo was acquired before or after the person converted.

[unixknight]

This would only make sense if we ALL were raised with the same standards to begin with. In pacific cultures, tattoos are an expected thing. Some are even handed down within families. Would you have people with tattoos removed from the church, or prevented from being baptized...because they didn't follow the standards of a church they didn't belong to at the time? I seriously doubt that you would want this. The point is that all of us fall short of the standards of the church in one way or another. Yet we are to forgive as Christ has instructed us. Why? Because he seeks to forgive us all, but he cannot so long as we judge others this way.

Here's the thing... What you say makes perfect sense and that's why people with pre-existing tattoos aren't barred from church membership... But at the same time cultural norms do not define the laws of the Church. There are cultures where it's perfectly common for married men to have a mistress on the side. Shall we relax the Law of Chastity for those cultures? What about cultures where drinking alcohol is normal for everyone? Shall we relax the Word of Wisdom in these places?

Of course not, because God's Law is the same for everyone.

So if the Church *IS* flexible on the point of tattoos by culture, then clearly having them isn't such a big deal to begin with.

It's either that or the Church is compromising its moral standards, and I refuse to accept that.

[rayhale]

I may be wrong, but I think the exceptions for tattoos are culture and identification. People like making themselves the exception to rules, that is why the Church always speaks in general terms, and in hard yes/no type of speech. I’m not mad, or jealous that someone else in the Church can have a tattoo and I can’t. I don’t have any desire to have one, so it doesn’t bother me.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I would like to redirect the thread a little bit. Does anyone know of any other cultural exceptions or exceptions in general?

[slamjet]

I'm having difficulty with the issue of things being allowed because it's cultural. For example, the Dowry. It's cultural. But Joseph W. Sitati of the Seventy specifically states that, in relation to "A new celestial culture is developing in homes," one of the blessings of the temple is:

"As an illustration from personal experience, three of our children were recently married in the temple without the encumbrance of dowry, a traditional practice that drives many young men and women to live together without any legal commitment to each other." (Blessings of the Gospel Available to All, October 2009 General Conference)

Now I'll concede that tattooing is minor compared to a dowry, but I believe the principles to be the same.

[Dravin]

I would like to redirect the thread a little bit. Does anyone know of any other cultural exceptions or exceptions in general?

There are dress differences (I'm am talking about the Lava Lava) that adjust what is considered appropriate Sunday dress, but while the principle of Sunday dress may be a standard the actual application is cultural (there is nothing inherently sacred about a suit). So it's probably not what you are thinking.

Edit: Sorry I was talking about the Lava Lava, things typed up wrong.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest mysticmorini]

No but I like where you are going. I love the Picture of two Male missionaries in "skirts" (I dont know what they are actually called). I believe in the Philippines it is acceptable for men to wear sandals or flip-flops to church.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQswiJrsGtJVrNz2rG5pCq5aSCU6haykZzu93uFDl9OThMQLN26Lw

Edited July 28, 2011 by mysticmorini

[bytebear]

Native Americans sometimes have long hair, and that is acceptable too. This was more of an issue in the hippy 60s when long hair was a sign of counter-culture.

[dahlia]

I love tattoos. My late husband had a few. We have someone (at least 1, there might be more) in the ward with some really fine ink. He brings his wife and baby to meetings and Gospel Principles. He wants to change his life and sees that change in the Church.

I cannot fathom that someone like that would be denied a temple recommend. Now, once he is a member, my understanding is he can't get any more (and I don't know how someone was allowed to serve a mission with a nose ring), but you don't deny people the blessings of the church and the temple because of what they did before they were members.

The question about tattoos raises an issue I frequently think about - how might the church look different 10 years from now with the influx of so many different nationalities and cultures? They aren't all going to put on bonnets and reenact the trek across the prairie. There are going to be cultural practices that people just won't give up, either purposefully, or without even thinking that they are doing something 'wrong.' because it is so much a part of the culture.

How many times do you think a Chinese or Indian convert has tea and doesn't even think about it being outside of the WoW? If some Africans practice scarification, will they stop just because they are members of the church, or is this something deeply engrained in their culture? I think about this as being similar to Catholics and voodoo or Santeria. There is the religion and then there is the culture. Sometimes they are separate, sometimes they are very intertwined. It's interesting to think about.

[Guest Sachi001]

I've noticed that the Church seems to make a lot of concessions to members of Polynesian heritage that normal members would would not be allowed to do.

the one main example includes tribal tattoos. Are there any other examples from other cultures or is the Polynesian culture the lone exception?

Hmm...since I live in Hawaii. I can see your view, but I would not read much into such. If you read the WoW thread the SP in 2003 announced the banning of Kava which is a traditional drink among locals.

(BTW if anyone questions The Stake ES has not sent the letter yet other than what was posted in the WoW thread. Give him sometime he is quite busy.)

Anyhow I have seen many Polynesians with tattoos, but the ones I know most were converts and had before joining. There are others who went inactive and got then became reactive. Then there are those that did get after reaching manhood.

However if your talking about tribal clan tattoos. Your addressing something that is as sacred to Polynesians as doing genealogy by proxy for your family. The tattoos are complicated and represent what would be considered a family coat of arms. Old days you would be killed for displaying such on your body if not of that clan. Unless the Church wants to lose 100k + Polynesians and places like Laie, PCC, BYU-H. I suggest discretionary sense of offending such Polynesians be let go. BYU-H is mostly funded by the Polynesian Cultural Center. In fact if you have ever been those LDS slackers are running around with no shirts. Polynesians don't display their Coat of Arms on paper. You would not like it if the 1st presidency told you to rid yourselves of you family Coat of Arms. Right?

The men were lavalavas too. (That's a skirt a little longer than a kilt but plain in color)

Christ is not that much concerned with how you look, but how clean your spirit is. Oh and you might want to know that Polynesians that grow coffee on the Kona side have been asked to destroy their coffee crops. Except for a few who went inactive because of such. The obedient ones have done this.

Oh yeah at Laie they do not sell alcohol, tobacco, and tea at the local FoodLand and closes on Sunday. However it outsells all the Grocery stores one on one in Oahu. The GM ( Samoan member) for Target on the Big Isle will not let the Kona store or Hilo store sell alcohol, tobacco, or tea at one time the risk of losing his job.

Yeah those Polynesians get away with everything.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Sachi001

[Guest Sachi001]

P.S. I'd have a hard time believing the temple recommend being withheld for tatoos, if I hadn't heard about them being withheld for men with beards (at least a beard can be shaved!).

Trust me it's not with held. We have a few with dreadlocks that come in to the Kona Temple.

[FunkyTown]

Of course not, because God's Law is the same for everyone.

So if the Church *IS* flexible on the point of tattoos by culture, then clearly having them isn't such a big deal to begin with.

It's either that or the Church is compromising its moral standards, and I refuse to accept that.

Perhaps it comes not from a flexibility in the Law, but in a basic misunderstanding you may have of the law to begin with.

Do you know why Tattoos are discouraged?

Could it be Tattoos are discouraged because our bodies are a temple to God?

Here's the Oakland temple:

And here's Las Vegas:

Is God's law mutable because some temples are allowed golden spires and some are not?

The law is that our bodies are temples. In our culture, tattoos are often a symbol of rebellion and edginess. In the Polynesian culture, they are a symbol of heritage and family. Surely you can see that in the one culture the law is transgressed by tattoos and in the other the law is not?

[Guest Sachi001]

Here is one without spires

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWxrMePUjuvr_xdWTDVq5eYQ8zCTakaA4KEiMoO6NhqpUY_ZGY

[Guest mysticmorini]

Unless the Church wants to lose 100k + Polynesians and places like Laie, PCC, BYU-H. I suggest discretionary sense of offending such Polynesians be let go.

So we should make consessions based on lossing members? I guess we should also allow gay marriage so we don't lose a bunch of members in california?

[unixknight]

Perhaps it comes not from a flexibility in the Law, but in a basic misunderstanding you may have of the law to begin with.

Do you know why Tattoos are discouraged?

Could it be Tattoos are discouraged because our bodies are a temple to God?

Is God's law mutable because some temples are allowed golden spires and some are not?

The law is that our bodies are temples. In our culture, tattoos are often a symbol of rebellion and edginess. In the Polynesian culture, they are a symbol of heritage and family. Surely you can see that in the one culture the law is transgressed by tattoos and in the other the law is not?

I'm not sure why different architecture among Temples is an analogy here, since they all conform to God's Will in terms of the facilities within them.

I do like that you said "discouraged" as opposed to "forbidden." That implies a certain flexibility as opposed to a hard rule. That's all I'm sayin'.

So we should make consessions based on lossing members? I guess we should also allow gay marriage so we don't lose a bunch of members in california?

^This. This is exactly what I'm getting at. The Church just doesn't DO that sort of thing, so if tattoos are an item where flexibility is okay, then it must not be a very firm rule.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Let me try this once more.

The Polenisian tattoo tradition is similar to a coat of arms, as stated earlier. It is a family heritage matter. It is not just a 'cultural' thing to get tattoos to them. It's part of their family history.

Here in America, we tend to view tattoos as more of a rebellion thing, or more of a 'hey look at me!!' thing. While many tattoos in western culture are very personal to the individual, it still does not approach the level of sacred identity that has been part of Polenisian heritage for centuries.

Now, having said that...again...can we once more look at the fact that nobody is forbidden from membership or temple attendance due to having tattoos. I cannot recall anyone stating in this thread that tattoos are totally forbidden. They are frowned upon because of how we are to view our bodies. Someone else made the analogy between tattoos and caffeine.

Each of us has our own testimony of what we ought to be doing. We need to live according to our own knowlege and wisdom rather than try to judge others and how they are living their lives. We aren't in competition against each other. We are in competition against ourselves.

[Blackmarch]

I've noticed that the Church seems to make a lot of concessions to members of Polynesian heritage that normal members would would not be allowed to do.

the one main example includes tribal tattoos. Are there any other examples from other cultures or is the polynesian culture the lone exception?

That would depend, I don't think that there is a "oh, you're polynesian, go ahead and get tattooed" policy... 10 to 1 its a case by case thing, as well that people make choices they have to repent of all the time... in the case of tattooing the church isn't going to make them remove it, and much like what Unix says, it's not a great sin nor is there a "this is a commandment from the lord" hardline rule against it. I"m sure there are polynesian folk who have declined to get tattoos because of their membership while others have not done the same.

Quite frankly if i could wiggle my fingers and swap out even 50% the immorality sins commited in the church by members for them doing getting tattoos mistakes, I would do so.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Blackmarch