Earrings

[Guest]

Aside from the counsel for women to have only one piercing per ear, have any of you heard of other guidelines for the earrings we wear? Someone today told me that some 12 years ago, it was read over the pulpit that our earrings shouldn't dangle more than an inch below our ears. I know this is the guideline for sister missionaries, but I'm talking about "civilian" members. I've never heard such counsel, and I daresay most women I know are breaking it if it exists! 

[pam]

I've never heard of such a thing.

[Guest]

Me neither. But then, she also believes that every woman in the church should be dressing according to Sister missionary standards, so. . .

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I've never heard of that either.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Me neither. But then, she also believes that every woman in the church should be dressing according to Sister missionary standards, so. . .

 

Always? Like...always in a skirt/dress? That's a bit of a "looking beyond the mark" attitude methinks.

[Sunday21]

I doubt that this directive was read from the pulpit

[mordorbund]

I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole.

 

Pretty sure I got that right.

[The Folk Prophet]

I remember that letter! Except is wasn't sister's earrings - it was high priests' ear lobes. They weren't supposed to droop more than an inch below the ear hole.

 

Pretty sure I got that right.

 

So this is out?

 

[Guest]

gross

[The Folk Prophet]

gross

 

What do you mean? For a woman that's totally within the scope of acceptable. One pair. Acceptable. 

[The Folk Prophet]

What do you mean? For a woman that's totally within the scope of acceptable. One pair. Acceptable. 

 

Oh...wait. I guess the counsel was one "minimal" or "modest" pair... :)

 

Actually that's a legit answer to the OP. When does it move beyond minimal and modest?

[pam]

This is what President Hinckley said:

 

May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them, and I believe you will feel better without them. As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient.

 

So isn't longer better?  Isn't that more modest?  

[Maureen]

Aside from the counsel for women to have only one piercing per ear, have any of you heard of other guidelines for the earrings we wear? Someone today told me that some 12 years ago, it was read over the pulpit that our earrings shouldn't dangle more than an inch below our ears. I know this is the guideline for sister missionaries, but I'm talking about "civilian" members. I've never heard such counsel, and I daresay most women I know are breaking it if it exists! 

 

Maybe this thought stems from the variety of fashion ideas that exist in the Mormon community all through the US. For example, when my friend moved to Idaho Falls from Canada, her earrings and hair fashion became bigger. And recently I noticed when she came to Canada to visit, she adopted that same fashion sense I noticed younger Mormon women had in Utah - the spaghetti strap shirts worn over a t-shirt. As far as I can tell, this seems to be a Mormon/Region fashion statement. I would not be surprised to see other Mormon women in other US states dress differently.

 

M.

[mdfxdb]

The only references to this are from some conference talks....some take it as absolute doctrine.  

[The Folk Prophet]

The only references to this are from some conference talks....some take it as absolute doctrine.  

 

I must re-ask the same thing I did in the other thread. Why does it need to be absolute doctrine to faithfully follow the counsel given in general conference?

[jerome1232]

Aside from the counsel for women to have only one piercing per ear, have any of you heard of other guidelines for the earrings we wear? Someone today told me that some 12 years ago, it was read over the pulpit that our earrings shouldn't dangle more than an inch below our ears. I know this is the guideline for sister missionaries, but I'm talking about "civilian" members. I've never heard such counsel, and I daresay most women I know are breaking it if it exists! 

I think that falls under the category of being modest in our dress. Modesty includes not being overly extravagant or showy. I don't believe there is a set size anymore, just the advice to stay modest is all.

[omegaseamaster75]

I must re-ask the same thing I did in the other thread. Why does it need to be absolute doctrine to faithfully follow the counsel given in general conference?

Because it is not doctrine.....it is one persons opinion a suggestion..... 

[The Folk Prophet]

Because it is not doctrine.....it is one persons opinion a suggestion..... 

 

It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.

[mdfxdb]

It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.

I think the doctrinal point is what is important here.  Wearing earrings/how we wear them/length/# of piercings....none of these things keep us from salvation.

 

Are there consequences to being overly ostentatious, flashy, prideful?  Of course.  Is the council given to us by the Prophets and Apostles good council?  Of course.  Do I want to hear from my fellow church member that I am "sinning" because I have a double piercing on my ear?  NO.  Because it is not a commandment.

[omegaseamaster75]

It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.

Not every word uttered in General conference should be taken as doctrine. I do not think our prophets want to have "follow the leader" mentality in the church. I believe that the gifts held by our Prophet, those of being a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator are manifest under under special conditions. I think that many members of the church give to much credence to the talks given in Conference, and are to quick to claim that since a GA said it, it must be doctrine or something that we must do.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think the doctrinal point is what is important here.  Wearing earrings/how we wear them/length/# of piercings....none of these things keep us from salvation.

 

Are there consequences to being overly ostentatious, flashy, prideful?  Of course.  Is the council given to us by the Prophets and Apostles good council?  Of course.  Do I want to hear from my fellow church member that I am "sinning" because I have a double piercing on my ear?  NO.  Because it is not a commandment.

 

I'm certainly not advocating fellow members telling other's they are sinning because they have double piercings. But following the counsel of the prophets is a commandment.

 

I quote D&C 1:14

And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

 

 

 

and vs 38

 

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

 

 

and D&C 21;4-6

 

 

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

 

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

 

For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

 

 

 

and D&C 112:20

 

Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.

 

 

That's just some of the scriptures that say this. There are more.  I could also give hundreds of conference talk quotes on it too...of course you don't seem to accept those as "doctrine"...just people's opinions...so.....

[Bini]

Never heard of it, and I would bet that trying to enforce it, would be a toughie.

[omegaseamaster75]

I can us the topical guide also what you are missing is Context

 

 

Statements by leaders may be useful and true, but when they are “expressed outside the established, prophetic parameters,” they do “not represent the official doctrine or position of the Church.”15 This includes statements given in General Conference. Conference talks—while certainly beneficial for 

the spiritual edification of the Saints—generally focus on revealed, official truths. They do not—by nature of being given in Conference—expound “official” doctrine. As Harold B. Lee said, “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write.”16 To claim that anything taught in general conference is “official” doctrine, notes J. F. McConkie, “makes the place where something is said rather than what is said the standard of truth. Nor is something doctrine simply because it was said by someone who holds a particular office or position. Truth is not an office or a position to which one is ordained.”17

 

15 Brent L. Top, Larry E. Dahl, and Walter D. Bowen, Follow the 

Living Prophets (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1993), 118. 16 Harold B. Lee, Stand Ye in Holy Places (Salt Lake City: Deseret 

Book Company., 1974), 162. 

17 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to 

Tough Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 

1998), 213–214.

[Guest]

If it was said in general conference or a letter to the church membership, that would be one thing. That's not even the issue. It's someone saying it was read over the pulpit when there is no evidence of such; and then claiming that the exact standards we're supposed to follow can be found in the sister missionaries' guidelines. 

[The Folk Prophet]

If it was said in general conference or a letter to the church membership, that would be one thing. That's not even the issue. It's someone saying it was read over the pulpit when there is no evidence of such; and then claiming that the exact standards we're supposed to follow can be found in the sister missionaries' guidelines. 

 

I'm fairly sure that length of earrings was never read over the pulpit. It is, however, in the sister missionary guidelines.

 

https://missionary.lds.org/dress-grooming/sister/guidelines/?lang=eng

 

Earrings should not hang longer than approximately one inch below the earlobe. Do not wear more than one earring in each ear. Necklaces and rings should also be simple and conservative. Tattoos, nose rings, other body piercings, or toe rings are not acceptable.

 

This clearly does not apply to the whole church though. I'd say applying generally it is a looking-beyond-the-mark issue.