Exceptions to the gospel for polynesian culture.

[unixknight]

Let me try this once more.

I don't know if you mean to, but by saying this you're coming across as if you don't think people are listening to your points simply because we don't agree.

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...

Got it the first time :)

It may be deep and sacred to the people of certain cultures but I just don't see why that should result in an exception to the rules UNLESS it isn't a rule to begin with. You can keep saying it's a family history thing and deep tradition and all that but I guarantee you cannot find another example anywhere in the world where a sinful act is tolerated by the Church on that basis. Sin is NEVER justifiable. Not ever. Never never never. Did I mention not ever? So my point is very simple: If tattooing is permissible for ANYONE then it isn't sinful.

Frowned upon, sure. Just like there's plenty of churchmembers who would call me out for my Pepsi drinking habit. Let them. I know what the Church policy is but I also know it won't keep me from the Temple.

can we once more look at the fact that nobody is forbidden from membership or temple attendance due to having tattoos.

Correction: Nobody is supposed to be barred from the Temple, and yet apparently it has happened. (Improperly, I might add.)

(I had a link and a quote here but I took it off after looking more closely at the site it came from... it's not really an appropriate site to be linking to from here.

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.

Except that caffeine isn't an issue with the Word of Wisdom, other than people associating it with coffee or tea. Otherwise, Pepsi would also be forbidden and as I write this I have a half empty bottle of it on my desk. On the day the First Presidency tells us that the Word of Wisdom now forbids caffeinated soft drinks, I'll be the first one to pour it out in the sink. Until then, I use my own judgement.

So it goes with tattoos.

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.

I'm not sure who in this thread is judging people. The topic is how we should understand a difference in Church perspective for certain cultures as it relates to tattoos.

Edited July 29, 2011 by unixknight

[Guest gopecon]

I think that there are some things when the sinfullness of the act depends on our reasons for doing the act. I think this is the point that RBuddha is making. While desecrating our body temple with tatoos is not encouraged, it is better to do it honoring one's family that to do it as a sign of rebellion and trying to look like a thug. In addition to Polynesian's, there are people who are tatooed with medic alert information.

I would also say that the lack of a hard, written rule does not mean that there is not a right or wrong answer. If I can use some heresay evidence, a general authority was visiting our stake some time ago. During a question and answer session someone asked about caffeine and the WoW. While he did not say that it is a large enough violation to keep one out of the temple, he did say that caffeinated soda is agains the WofW. We may not have to answer to our bishop for it, but we will have to answer to God based on the light and knowledge that we have on the subject.

Edited July 29, 2011 by gopecon
removed GA name

[Guest mysticmorini]

If I can use some heresay evidence, Bishop H. David Burton was visiting our stake some time ago. During a question and answer session someone asked about caffeine and the WoW.

You are not supposed to quote GA's unless they are speaking in general conference talks. Pretty sure thats in the CHI.

[Guest gopecon]

CHI = Church Handbook of Instructions or something else??? Are you sure about this? GA's are quoted all of the time in the Church News. They travel the world doing training. Do you think local leaders can't use their quotes after they leave?

I removed the leader's name, but I believe the principal that he was teaching was a true one.

[unixknight]

I think that there are some things when the sinfullness of the act depends on our reasons for doing the act. I think this is the point that RBuddha is making. While desecrating our body temple with tatoos is not encouraged, it is better to do it honoring one's family that to do it as a sign of rebellion and trying to look like a thug. In addition to Polynesian's, there are people who are tatooed with medic alert information.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I'll take a real life example and I'd be interested in your opinion. I know someone (American) who got a tattoo of her husband's family coat of arms. It's in a place where normal, modest clothing covers it. She was already a churchmember (although inactive) when she got it done.

Is this a "She needs to tell the Bishop" thing, in your opinion? Would it make a difference if she were active? Would it make a difference if she had a temple recommend?

[Guest mysticmorini]

CHI = Church Handbook of Instructions or something else??? Are you sure about this? GA's are quoted all of the time in the Church News. They travel the world doing training. Do you think local leaders can't use their quotes after they leave?

I removed the leader's name, but I believe the principal that he was teaching was a true one.

I think it was to keep people from misquoting and starting mormon folk lore. the church news can do it because they are part of the "church" if that makes sense.

[Guest gopecon]

While I don't believe that people should get them, I also think that tatoos are not something that rises to the level of speaking to one's priesthood leader. I don't think that it really matters if she was active at the time or not. With a one time act like this, what could a bishop reasonably do to have her repent? It's between her and God - no one else is being harmed.

It seems to me that in one sense this is comparable to reading scriptures or personal prayer. We are all supposed to do them. It's clear that we are commanded to do so, yet there is not a level of study or prayer that we have to maintain to keep our membership in good standing. Some things are left to our personal judgement. Will I have to answer for not praying sufficiently, or not reading the scriptures enough? Absolutely! Will I have to answer for how I treated my body (diet, exercise, tatoos, other modification, etc.) during mortality? You betcha! :)

[unixknight]

Thanks for that reply, and I think you phrased it very well.

[dahlia]

If I can use some heresay evidence, a general authority was visiting our stake some time ago. During a question and answer session someone asked about caffeine and the WoW. While he did not say that it is a large enough violation to keep one out of the temple, he did say that caffeinated soda is agains the WofW.

Really? My understanding, including asking here on the boards, was that the WoW constrain drinking hot drinks, caffeine is not the issue. I just bought a bunch of soda for our missionaries who are hosting boys from the ward this weekend to show them what missionaries do. They specifically asked for Mountain Dew, which I know to be one of the most caffeinated drinks you can get. I have fed elders in my home caffeinated sodas (soda flavors/brands they requested as I wanted to make sure I didn't offend them) and I know some who will drink 'energy drinks' if they don't have coffee in them. All of these good young men go to the temple.

Can we clear this up - that the restriction is on hot drinks, specifically tea and coffee, and not on caffeine - which is in chocolate/hot cocoa btw, something my elders drank constantly during our cold Midwest winter and which I understand is served at BYU.

[unixknight]

Can we clear this up - that the restriction is on hot drinks, specifically tea and coffee, and not on caffeine - which is in chocolate/hot cocoa btw, something my elders drank constantly during our cold Midwest winter and which I understand is served at BYU.

The WoW says absolutely nothing about caffeine... The First Presidency has indicated it's a prohibition only on coffee and tea. (I've heard that herbal tea is ok, but I can't back that up.)

[estradling75]

Can we clear this up - that the restriction is on hot drinks, specifically tea and coffee, and not on caffeine - which is in chocolate/hot cocoa btw, something my elders drank constantly during our cold Midwest winter and which I understand is served at BYU.

Dahlia there are two levels of the Word of Wisdom that commonly get mixed up. First there is the minimum needed to be worthy to hold a recommend. Many members consider this all there is to the Word of Wisdom. But there is more, there is the fullness as it is contained in the D&C 89.

The minimum makes no reference to caffeine, the fullness doesn't reference it either but it does talk about using wisdom and knowledge to make wise food choices and avoiding things that aren't good. The fullness side can fit in a caffeine restriction quite easily but it is all about using personal judgement so it a big fat grey area.

So we have people saying that we should avoid caffeine because of the Word of Wisdom guidance and their understanding of the effects of caffeine. And others saying it is perfectly fine because it in not a worthiness requirement. We tend to focus more on worthiness aspect and then individual make personal decisions on higher stuff

[beefche]

You are not supposed to quote GA's unless they are speaking in general conference talks. Pretty sure thats in the CHI.

The rule is if it is in printed form, then you can quote the GAs. If a GA goes to your ward or stake conference and you took notes, then no, you cannot quote him on that. The principle is that what you wrote may not be accurate. But, if it is in the Ensign, church manual, book, news article, etc., then it can be verified as accurate.

[Guest gopecon]

Dahlia, the WofW specifically forbids hot drinks (specifically defined as tea and coffee), strong drinks (alcohol), and tobacco. For worthiness purposes it has been expanded to include the use of illicit drugs. While the specific reason why these are forbidden in not in D&C 89, they are all potentially habit forming. We have been counseled to avoid habit forming substances, although this is often done in general terms (no lists are given - posssibly to avoid confusion over the acceptability of something that were to get missed on a list).

Caffeine is the primary habit forming component of tea and coffee. As such, many in the church try to avoid consuming drinks that contain it. It should not be used to withhold a temple recommend, but that does not mean that it is okay - it's just not specifically forbidden.

[Guest Sachi001]

Wow aren't we getting off topic here? From tattoos to caffeine in WoW.

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

If a fireman carries your child out of a burning house, do you go: put him/her down, you have a smudge on your face

[Guest Sachi001]

So we should make concessions based on losing members? I guess we should also allow gay marriage so we don't lose a bunch of members in California?

Churches make concessions all the time based on revelation by the Lord to it's head authorities and not personal revelation to others. Example as the ban on PH to African Americans. How about Martin Luther rebelling?