Danna wrote:My TBM mother calls it advice, but in my book, advice should not come with formal sanctions for not following that advice. One earriong per ear has become a policy, if not a rule.
What?? What sanctions? I've never seen nor heard of any official discipline for having more than 1 earring. Have I missed something?
Not being allowed to have a temple recommend unless one removes the earrings is official, isn't it?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
mentalgymnast wrote:I don't know that since Sonja Johnson and the ERA has anything caused so much controversy among some women in the church as earrings.
Oh, I have no doubt there is massive community tsk tsking going on, but formal sanctions??
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
The sanctions actually occur for not obeying and sustaining the priesthood, not for the existence of two earrings per se. First comes the social sanctions from other members (i.e. the story of the RM who dropped his fiancee when she refused to remove her extra earring). Then repeated refusal to comply becomes disobedience, which is subject to informal or formal sanctions (e.g. removal from teaching callings for being a bad example).
I have heard of people having to remove earrings in order to get a recommend - no I do not have any proof though, it is heresay, and now second hand hearsay at that.
If, after being advised by the Bishop to remove one's second earring, a person out-right refused, what do you think would happen.
If one was seen in church with two earrings after the Bishop had made a formal statement from the pulpit of the 'advice' along with the importance of honoring, sustaining and obeying the bretheren, what do you think would happen?
Danna wrote:The sanctions actually occur for not obeying and sustaining the priesthood, not for the existence of two earrings per se. First comes the social sanctions from other members (i.e. the story of the RM who dropped his fiancee when she refused to remove her extra earring). Then repeated refusal to comply becomes disobedience, which is subject to informal or formal sanctions (e.g. removal from teaching callings for being a bad example).
I have heard of people having to remove earrings in order to get a recommend - no I do not have any proof though, it is heresay, and now second hand hearsay at that.
If, after being advised by the Bishop to remove one's second earring, a person out-right refused, what do you think would happen.
If one was seen in church with two earrings after the Bishop had made a formal statement from the pulpit of the 'advice' along with the importance of honoring, sustaining and obeying the bretheren, what do you think would happen?
Well, well. It has come down to earrings and hearsay. Have you ever heard of a member being restricted for multiple earrings? We are encouraged to have clean-shaven faces, but there recently was a stake president in the San Fernando Valley who re-grew his beard during his tenure and he wasn't kicked out of the temple. (A former Rabbi, where beards were required, he felt uncomfortable without one.)
rcrocket wrote:Have you ever heard of a member being restricted for multiple earrings?
I've heard an apostle praise an RM who dumped his serious girlfriend after she didn't remove her multiple earrings after GBH's "counsel to the sisters."
We are encouraged to have clean-shaven faces, but there recently was a stake president in the San Fernando Valley who re-grew his beard during his tenure and he wasn't kicked out of the temple.
I'm sure you are aware that all male temple workers must be clean shaven (if not, they cannot be temple workers).
(A former Rabbi, where beards were required, he felt uncomfortable without one.)
That's probably what saved your buddy.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)