A conversation I had with my sister...

[_Ren]

Well, I think "Sunday best" is something that goes across denominations. I'm not supposing that LDS Christians are the only ones that want to be spiffy on Sundays. I just think some of the directives that come from the prophet that go beyond what your appearance is like on Sundays is what I was alluding to, mostly. I know Charity mentioned that you follow these directives (clean cut, piercings, tattoos, etc...) because it shows that you are dedicating yourself to the Lord. I've mentioned on MAD that I don't understand this? There are other cultures where tattoos and piercings are just a part of their cultural heritage and I find it odd that the "clean cut" version of God somehow lines up with those that sit in Salt Lake City, America. :)

I understand the need for missionaries to be presentable so that they get in doors. Yet, I just don't really understand some of the other directives that empahsize appearance. If people are happy with it, then so be it. Yet, I just see it as rather pointless? I can see a parent wanting their children to refrain from certain things in order to be successful in life (for instance tattoos on your face might lessen your chances at some job opportunities:) and see some of these common sense things passed down from Prophets. Is there anything in the Bible that refers to bodies as a temple? I'm thinking I've heard that from some EV neighbors a long time ago that clucked their tongues at my first husband. He did think of his body as a temple and adorned it with beautiful artwork that was inked into his skin. He was a walking piece of art -- to me. I just see more of this as attempting to press "common sense" worldly dictates of the "wholesome American life" into the idea of God. Was that a rant?? Does that make any sense?

Ahh yes - there are general appearance 'guidelines' that go beyond Sunday dress. Indeed.

I agree that the LDS emphasis on controlling appearance can be seen as 'odd'. To me, it's an elderly leadership wanting to mold the youth into what they see as 'respectable' young men and women. And to them, respectable young men and women don't go getting tattoos, getting all kinds of piercings, or trying to look 'rebellious' (As they'd see it as I suppose) in any way.

I don't think it's anything more complicated than that. The leadership don't need to justify those kinds of initiatives from scripture. They already speak for God...

An interesting little twist on this is that while I basically stuck to the guidelines that the church prescribed, I put far less emphasis on how people looked (as far as deciding what that person 'is like') than many of my friends. Friends that weren't religious at all.
They seemed to regularly make 'judgments' on people by what they wore, or whether they had tattoo's, piercings - whether they looked 'outside the norm' etc. It was never that way with me, even when I was a member. To me, it literally didn't make logical sense to think that way. How could you tell what someone was like from their outward appearance? I didn't even think of it as some kind of moral issue. To me, it was a matter of reason.

Well, so LDS aren't supposed to judge? ... What is the scripture that deals with this?

I suppose the most obvious and direct scripture is Matthew 7:1. Well, the first 5 verses of Matthew 7 are probably all relevant to the principle:

Matthew 7:1-5

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Yet, in the Church can you speak out if you are unsatisfied?

Well, I think there'd be a difference between speaking out against a central doctrine, and speaking out against a member receiving perhaps unfair treatment from other members - say. (Political wrangling within a ward or some such...)

Having your world heaved upside down is not fun! How long ago did you leave, Ren? I can't believe I've never asked this of you!

I've been out of the church for just over 10 years now.

[_Moniker]

Ahh yes - there are general appearance 'guidelines' that go beyond Sunday dress. Indeed.

I agree that the LDS emphasis on controlling appearance can be seen as 'odd'. To me, it's an elderly leadership wanting to mold the youth into what they see as 'respectable' young men and women. And to them, respectable young men and women don't go getting tattoos, getting all kinds of piercings, or trying to look 'rebellious' (As they'd see it as I suppose) in any way.

I don't think it's anything more complicated than that. The leadership don't need to justify those kinds of initiatives from scripture. They already speak for God...

There also is a need to control what women wear, as well. Yet, I think this goes back to ensuring that women are not seen as sexually titillating for men. I remember being shocked (SHOCKED) the first time someone on the board thought one of my avatars was seductive. I hadn't even considered such a thing! It is apparent, to me, that once this emphasis is put on external that somehow this correlates to making judgments on those that don't fit into this niche and prescribing attributes to them.

An interesting little twist on this is that while I basically stuck to the guidelines that the church prescribed, I put far less emphasis on how people looked (as far as deciding what that person 'is like') than many of my friends. Friends that weren't religious at all.
They seemed to regularly make 'judgments' on people by what they wore, or whether they had tattoo's, piercings - whether they looked 'outside the norm' etc. It was never that way with me, even when I was a member. To me, it literally didn't make logical sense to think that way. How could you tell what someone was like from their outward appearance? I didn't even think of it as some kind of moral issue. To me, it was a matter of reason.

Right. I think it would need to go back to reason. There are certain things we can determine about someone by their outward appearance -- and that is that they may want to look a certain way. If you have tattoos I assume you like them. If you have piercings I assume you like them. If you wear certain clothes I assume that's what you prefer to wear and are comfortable in them. Yet, to then go and attempt to delve into their morality or anything else about them seems to stretch the limits of logical thought. I saw a poster state (a few months ago) that he is beginning to think about how women dress and think there may be nothing wrong with a woman dressing in a miniskirt -- or something along those lines. I was slightly struck that this is a poster that's been out of the Church a while and that this is just occurring to him. It seems that this controlling of appearance (and dictating precisely what is acceptable) does shape the mind and how others on the outside are viewed.

Well, so LDS aren't supposed to judge? ... What is the scripture that deals with this?

I suppose the most obvious and direct scripture is Matthew 7:1. Well, the first 5 verses of Matthew 7 are probably all relevant to the principle:

Matthew 7:1-5

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Ah! Thanks. Yes, I knew about the mote and beam. We're all hypocrites -- I think it's owning up to our hypocrisy that is important. :)

Yet, in the Church can you speak out if you are unsatisfied?

Well, I think there'd be a difference between speaking out against a central doctrine, and speaking out against a member receiving perhaps unfair treatment from other members - say. (Political wrangling within a ward or some such...)

Can you explain how one would go about speaking out against a central doctrine? For instance if the HG counters the Prophet can you speak about that?

[_Ren]

There also is a need to control what women wear, as well. Yet, I think this goes back to ensuring that women are not seen as sexually titillating for men.

Yeap. I have no problem believing that's involved in the thinking as well.

I was slightly struck that this is a poster that's been out of the Church a while and that this is just occurring to him. It seems that this controlling of appearance (and dictating precisely what is acceptable) does shape the mind and how others on the outside are viewed.

No doubt this is how some people think in the church. (...and well after leaving it...!)

Ah! Thanks. Yes, I knew about the mote and beam. We're all hypocrites -- I think it's owning up to our hypocrisy that is important. :)

Indeed :)

Can you explain how one would go about speaking out against a central doctrine? For instance if the HG counters the Prophet can you speak about that?

It never happened - when I was a member. You certainly aren't going to get church policy changed over such a 'prompting', so arguably it's pointless to speak out about it. The confirmations from the HG are generally meant to be personal in nature.

[_Ren]

...just thought of something that I always 'disagreed with' and never really followed when I was a member...

...in the 'Strength Of Youth' booklet, it mentions guidelines for what kind of music one should listen to.

http://www.LDS.org/library/display/0,49 ... -7,00.html (Check the paragraph 'Music and Dancing')

I think I started disobeying this 'rule' quite early :) I listened to pretty much any kind of music I liked.
Swearing. Promoting 'immorality'. Whatever. (I never listened to what I'd call 'Satanic' music mind...!)

I did quite like church music as well, but I wasn't limited in what I listened to. And I didn't really feel bad about it. I'd often get a bit of a 'tut' from my mum, and from my church leaders sometimes. But since I did 'everything else', they didn't really care that much.

I didn't see that big a deal in watching R-rated movies either.

Damn - now I've given the 'righteousness' crew the reasons they need to declare why I 'really' ended up leaving the church! Heh ;)

[_Yoda]

Damn - now I've given the 'righteousness' crew the reasons they need to declare why I 'really' ended up leaving the church! Heh ;)

Well, then, I suppose I'm "knocking on the apostate door". LOL

I'm a nerd when it comes to the kind of music I listen to (just personal taste), but I've been watching R rated movies since I was 16.

I've never specifically sought them out, but if there was a movie I wanted to watch, I didn't worry about the rating. My parents were OK with my making my own choices about movie ratings.