Breast implants

[SoonerCoug]

Why has the Church spoken out against tattoos and extra earrings but not against breast implants? It seems to me that all of these things are just attempts to decorate or beautify the body.

[TripletDaddy]

Why has the Church spoken out against tattoos and extra earrings but not against breast implants? It seems to me that all of these things are just attempts to decorate or beautify the body.

I don't know, but for some reason, why you list out "tattoos" and "extra earrings" like that, it strikes me how inane it is for the Church to speak on any of these topics, at all.

Earrings? The Church is counseling us about how many earrings our daughters should wear?

Where are all the CUF yokels that don't want "big government" intruding on every aspect of their lives? I know. They are probably out berating their daughter for having 2 earrings in her earlobe.

[smokymountainrain]

Why has the Church spoken out against tattoos and extra earrings but not against breast implants? It seems to me that all of these things are just attempts to decorate or beautify the body.

A fair question, indeed. I wish I knew the answer.

[CardiacCoug]

I don't know, but for some reason, why you list out "tattoos" and "extra earrings" like that, it strikes me how inane it is for the Church to speak on any of these topics, at all.

Earrings? The Church is counseling us about how many earrings our daughters should wear?

Right on.

Piercings and tattoos are just cultural traditions that evolve over time and geography. If the LDS Church really wants to be an international church, it sure seems strange to give out edicts based on conservative US norms.

In cultures where tattoos are the norm (New Zealand) or nose rings are the norm (India, maybe), why would Americans try to impose their own cultural traditions on people from other countries where those cultural traditions differ?

Since we've been talking about the Mayo Clinic in other threads, I was reminded of how I learned when I was in residency there that employees are forbidden from having any "visible tattoos." I knew some secretaries and nurses with tattoos that they had to keep hidden. One male nurse who had been in the Navy had to always wear long-sleeved shirts at work to cover his tattoos.

While I understand why the Church (like the Mayo Clinic) wants its members to maintain a clean-cut, professional image, the advice on piercings and tattoos just seems overly Utah-centric.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Right on.

Piercings and tattoos are just cultural traditions that evolve over time and geography. If the LDS Church really wants to be an international church, it sure seems strange to give out edicts based on conservative US norms.

In cultures where tattoos are the norm (New Zealand) or nose rings are the norm (India, maybe), why would Americans try to impose their own cultural traditions on people from other countries where those cultural traditions differ?

Since we've been talking about the Mayo Clinic in other threads, I was reminded of how I learned when I was in residency there that employees are forbidden from having any "visible tattoos." I knew some secretaries and nurses with tattoos that they had to keep hidden. One male nurse who had been in the Navy had to always wear long-sleeved shirts at work to cover his tattoos.

While I understand why the Church (like the Mayo Clinic) wants its members to maintain a clean-cut, professional image, the advice on piercings and tattoos just seems overly Utah-centric.

Agreed. Seems like micro-managing of the members

[smokymountainrain]

Agreed. Seems like micro-managing of the members

I agree, but I question how much it really matters in the big picture.

While church leaders have certainly counseled against tattoos and/or multiple piercings, as long as it doesn't keep a person out of the temple, it is merely counsel and not much more.

[ERCougar]

Agreed. Seems like micro-managing of the members

The Church? Micromanaging? Now that's just crazy talk there.

[RockyBalboa]

They're suggestions, not commandments. (Tattoos & Earrings that is)

Relax.

[il Padrino Ute]

While I understand why the Church (like the Mayo Clinic) wants its members to maintain a clean-cut, professional image, the advice on piercings and tattoos just seems overly Utah-centric.

So, you're saying that only a Utah Mormon would question these guys blessing the sacrament?

[scottie]

They're suggestions, not commandments. (Tattoos & Earrings that is)

Relax.

Serious question -- what's the test for determining if something that GBH said while president of the Church was a suggestion vs. a commandment? and what's the source for your answer?

[CardiacCoug]

So, you're saying that only a Utah Mormon would question these guys blessing the sacrament?

Those guys make me very uncomfortable, no doubt about it. And they will have a hard time ever getting any job that involves interaction with the public.

I think avoiding excessive tattoos and piercings (especially those that are difficult to cover up) is good advice. But in a culture where no one ever pierced their ears, big hoop earrings that some LDS ladies like to wear would seem bizarre. In parts of India, not having a nose ring may be more unusual than having an nose ring. Ditto for tattoos among Maoris in New Zealand (maybe, I'm just guessing). That's what I'm getting at.

[ERCougar]

Serious question -- what's the test for determining if something that GBH said while president of the Church was a suggestion vs. a commandment? and what's the source for your answer?

For DDD's sake, I'm gonna fall back on the wisdom of CS Lewis:

The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of “modesty” (in one sense of that word); i.e., propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might be equally “modest,” proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or “emancipated” people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.

I can't really say it any better.

[il Padrino Ute]

Those guys make me very uncomfortable, no doubt about it. And they will have a hard time ever getting any job that involves interaction with the public.

I think avoiding excessive tattoos and piercings (especially those that are difficult to cover up) is good advice. But in a culture where no one ever pierced their ears, big hoop earrings that some LDS ladies like to wear would seem bizarre. In parts of India, not having a nose ring may be more unusual than having an nose ring. Ditto for tattoos among Maoris in New Zealand (maybe, I'm just guessing). That's what I'm getting at.

I understand and agree. I'm just giving you a bit of a hard time.

The third guy is a Utahn. He killed a Corrections Officer while escaping from a medical examination, IIRC. I believe it was 1 or 2 years ago.

[CardiacCoug]

For DDD's sake, I'm gonna fall back on the wisdom of CS Lewis:


I can't really say it any better.

I like that quote.

My grandpa thought that it was completely embarrassing and inappropriate for any adult, especially an LDS adult, to wear shorts. Now everybody wears shorts. He thought women should always wear dresses instead of pants.

These cultural norms change over time. Eventually I'm sure I will be the old man who is appalled by the indecent stuff the young kids are wearing.

[Mr Incredible]

I like that quote.

My grandpa thought that it was completely embarrassing and inappropriate for any adult, especially an LDS adult, to wear shorts. Now everybody wears shorts. He thought women should always wear dresses instead of pants.

These cultural norms change over time. Eventually I'm sure I will be the old man who is appalled by the indecent stuff the young kids are wearing.

I'm very disappointed in you people. A thread that starts with breast implants changes into a discussion of tattoos and earrings and then shorts? Please, people...

STAY ON TOPIC!!