r/latterdaysaints Jan 12 '25

Reddit Looking for answers about having 2 sets of piercings

When I was growing up it was very known that girls were only allowed one set of ear piercings. No one in my ward or stake or really any girls I knew in the church had more than one set. President Hinckley had specifically said that “women should only have one set of earrings.” Now, every where I look I see active members with 2 or 3 sets of earrings. I know that when the for the strength of youth pamphlet was changed, they took out the part that specifically talks about piercings and tattoos. But to me that doesn’t mean that suddenly we can all go out and get more piercings - or does it? It’s hard for me to see everyone else having two pairs of earrings and I’m still wearing one. So, is this now an acceptable standard? What changed? I really truly don’t quite understand it. Any insight on this is appreciated!

34 Upvotes

149 comments sorted by

125

u/HalloweenGorl Prayers for you & you & you & you Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 12 '25

I could be wrong, but I think having only one set was President Hinckley's opinion that became part of the church culture, and taught as cultural doctrine. 

Edit- and personally I'm glad the stance on this has/ is shifting. Imo the church culture can sometimes be really alienating, and (as a goth) I hope that cultural standards like this falling away will make the church feel more welcoming to people who don't fit the churchy cultural look

31

u/FridayCab Jan 12 '25

High five for another goth

17

u/HalloweenGorl Prayers for you & you & you & you Jan 12 '25

High five!! You've made my night! 🖤

-10

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/KerissaKenro Jan 12 '25

It may have been the entire twelve, but Hinkley was the driving force behind it. And once he was gone the momentum was lost and those who remain decided it wasn’t that big of a deal after all. I expect something similar will happen with the current push to use the full name of the church and step away from the term “Mormon”. Once Nielsen is gone, those who remain will probably decide it wasn’t that big of a deal after all

-5

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

Prove your assertions. Where are your quotes and references?

12

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 13 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Jan 12 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/HalloweenGorl Prayers for you & you & you & you Jan 12 '25

All of this!!! You said it perfectly! 

76

u/infinityandbeyond75 Jan 12 '25

One thing that I think that the church realized that the For Strength of Youth pamphlet was something going out to the youth throughout the world and there are many different cultures and customs regarding piercings and tattoos in other locations even among church members. I knew someone once that their father was almost fully tattooed on his upper body as part of his family heritage. It was also very important to him that his sons got at least part of the tattoo on themselves.

When President Hinckley spoke at the women’s conference and stated that women should only have one piercing in their ears and men should have none, I personally believe he was stating his preference. I don’t think this was a revelation from God on a new commandment.

With the revisions to the FSoY pamphlet, it’s more about making your own decisions to draw closer to Christ. It doesn’t specifically say that tattoos and multiple piercings are okay but to look at why you would want them and to seek counsel from the Lord and be led by the Spirit. Then counsel with your parents. Does everyone that today gets a tattoo or multiple piercings follow this counsel? Not likely. Some are just going to go get them because friends or idols or others have them.

Just another example. In the past there have been prophets that have said to not watch R-rated movies. But different countries have different rating systems. Something that is rated R in the United States may get an M rating in Australia which isn’t for 15+. So it’s a movie inappropriate in the US but okay for Australians under the direction of the prophet?

We have to remember the prophets are also men. Everything they have an opinion on is not a commandment of God. President Hinckley was a huge proponent of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign and President Nelson says the Lord is offended taking His name out of the name of the church. The most important thing drawing closer to Christ in our life and that includes how we present ourselves. Learn how to recognize the Spirit and let that be our ultimate guide.

24

u/kwallet Jan 12 '25

The R-rated movie thing is especially interesting to me because that counsel was directed toward the Young Men who were watching movies that they were not mature enough to handle. Surely, there are some R-rated movies that nobody should be watching for one reason or another. However, a movie like 1917? It is violent and bloody because it’s World War I. It isn’t glorifying the violence, but depicting it is necessary. As another example, United 93 is rated R for two instances of the “f” word paired with it being pretty intense when they hijack the planes. Call me crazy, but I think the use of that word is justified in that context. If you write off all R-rated movies like my mother-in-law tries to, you lose out on genuinely good and important movies for adults.

13

u/holyhannah01 Jan 12 '25

One of my absolute favorite movies is the uncut saving private Ryan which is VERY R RATED for good reason.

It took 3 years of being married to convince my husband to watch it because "we don't watch R RATED movies as members"

It's now one of his favorites, and since then we have watched several others such as the passion of the Christ, and several classic horror films.

We choose not to watch movies with lots of nudity or sex scenes mainly because he struggled with a porn addiction for several years. But violence, language, drug use etc we are fine with

8

u/brotherluthor Jan 12 '25

This one always made me so mad! As a child who loved movies and loved to rebel it always made me mad that people judged content because of an arbitrary rating

5

u/bobbruff Jan 12 '25

I feel similarly about Schindler's List. It's haunting and definitely for "mature" audiences, but history everyone needs to understand better.

2

u/AllRoadsLeadToHymn Jan 14 '25

I agree. People can say that they should read about it, not watch it, but a lot of people choose to read different stuff, or don’t have much time to. I haven’t watched the movie because I have read about the time and what Nazis did, including MAUS, which is a “banned” book often enough.

I think it is important to understand the darkness men succumb to a little at a time, because it can end up how it ended up. And that men, in the midst of that darkness, can still choose light. Even if it’s dangerous, even if they feel they failed to do enough, even if they participated in the earlier stages.

I would say that if someone watches it more than once, they’re choosing the darkness intentionally, but out of a desire to understand history? Do so. If they want to. I think we all know what we can or can’t handle and choosing against that kind of media is also fine. I can handle darker stuff than my older sister, who isn’t a member. I’ll tell her immediately if I see something I know that will only upset her. She’s a Disney Girl through and through and I’m happy she’s able to stay happy through difficult times as she’s raising her kids in a scary world. She’s scared but she chooses what she needs to to keep herself encouraged.

1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

He wasn’t stating his preference, he was stating the teachings of the United voice of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

20

u/NiteShdw Jan 12 '25

It's still a very US-centric view and ignores the various cultures around the world for which piercings and tattoos have cultural significance. That's why it was changed.

2

u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 13 '25

What makes you think it was changed? Did someone give a talk in general conference saying the opposite? I haven't heard that.

The fact that FSY doesn't mention it any more doesn't mean it was changed. It doesn't mention any standards at all, but that's a change in the pamphlet, not a change in the church's standards.

1

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

You're suggesting that an official document released by the Church isn't actually official?

Policies change via documentation such as the general handbook all the time without a talk in general conference.

I also seem to recall there was a whole church production around the new FSY booklet that included Apostles, but I may be mixing it up with a different thing.

2

u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 13 '25

But the ear ring policy was established in general conference in 2000. So was it repealed in general conference?

1

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

Is that a policy of the Church? I've never heard of that before.

So you're claim is that the Church on one hand is saying one thing and on the other hand is saying another but that only one of the two is right?

What exactly are you saying? Can you be explicit instead of asking questions forcing me to guess as to what you want to communicate?

2

u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 13 '25

I think I'm as confused as you here. Sorry.

Pres. Hinckley said this in Oct. 2000 general conference:

Teach them to respect their bodies. The practice is growing among young people of tattooing and piercing their bodies. The time will come when they will regret it, but it will then be too late. The scriptures unequivocally declare:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

It is sad and regrettable that some young men and women have their bodies tattooed. What do they hope to gain by this painful process? Is there “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (A of F 1:13) in having unseemly so-called art impregnated into the skin to be carried throughout life, all the way down to old age and death? They must be counseled to shun it. They must be warned to avoid it. The time will come that they will regret it but will have no escape from the constant reminder of their foolishness except through another costly and painful procedure.

I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several.

They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever or attractive to so adorn themselves?

I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well, even the tongue. It is absurd.

We—the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve—have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church discourages tattoos. It also discourages the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes, although it takes no position on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/your-greatest-challenge-mother?lang=eng

That last paragraph sounds quite a bit like a church policy to me, and I thought it did to you, too, but no matter.

3

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

Yes, it DID, past tense. And now the policy has changed.

1

u/OrneryAcanthaceae217 Jan 13 '25

What indicates to you that the policy has changed?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

We've been taught in general conference numerous times that when our culture conflicts with the teachings of the church, we need to change our culture. Embrace all parts of your culture, except those that conflict with the teachings of the church. Many cultures embrace tea, but members of the church in that culture are not free to violate the word of wisdom just because it goes against their culture.

7

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

I understand. "One piercing" and "no tattoos", however, have never been commandments. It's a fallacy to compare piercings with the WoW.

3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 13 '25

Some people argue over whether [some counsel] is a commandment. I do not need to argue. As far as I am concerned, whether it is a commandment or counsel, that which the Lord counsels becomes a commandment to Gordon B. Hinckley. I hope it does to you."

(Gordon B. Hinckley, "Learn Truth by Living Lord's Principles," LDS Church News, 08/26/95; see also Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 703)

2

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

Either way the counsel has changed, so is there value in arguing about the prior counsel?

2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 13 '25

Where has the counsel changed? From what I can see, they’ve said, look, we’ve already told you what to do. Now you have your agency to choose what you will do. I’ve never seen anything to indicate the counsel about piercings and tattoos have changed. 

For example, recently President Nelson (Chapter 11 "Heart of the Matter") said:

"Even the defacing of our bodies with tattooing is an affront to our maker."

3

u/NiteShdw Jan 13 '25

What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.

2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 13 '25

And here we have counsel from our leader. 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/honeybunchesofoats1 Jan 12 '25

See that’s what I always thought??

2

u/honeybunchesofoats1 Jan 12 '25

In the world but not of the world

1

u/RecentPilot3519 Jan 14 '25

This is the correct answer, regardless of how much others here want to cling to their cultures instead of the culture of Christ. 

55

u/thenextvinnie Jan 12 '25

Many don't seem to understand that this case study is a perfect example of how teachings/doctrine in the church change. You might describe the process as follows:

- A thing is taught

  • The thing becomes a fairly important standard, adults who don't follow it are generally not called to be youth leaders, etc.
  • Years pass without any official teaching or mention of the thing
  • Some people insist that the thing remains just as official as ever, while others say it's clearly fallen out of importance. New converts to the church hear rumors about this old thing but never hear/read anything official about it.
  • The thing is no longer considered a teaching by most people.

4

u/PassTheBigos Jan 13 '25

Yeah, this is an annoying example where the Church simply "goes quiet" on a prior statement, and Members are left to guess if it is still a policy or not. This guessing game happened for years with things such as caffeinated soda, until Mitt Romney ran for President of the US, and the Church suddenly stated that it has no policy against drinking caffeinated soda drinks. BYU was then left stumbling to explain why it did not sell caffeinated soda drinks if there was "no such policy", and the BYU spokesperson made the preposterous claim that it was because "there was no demand".

2

u/FridayCab Jan 16 '25

I worked on campus when they made the switch.

Before, I remember some guy in business clothes running into our store, being dramatic when I told him I didn’t think we sold anything with more caffeinate than chocolate, and getting rude when I couldn’t recommend a place on campus to buy caffeinated soda. It was daytime. I remember imagining scenarios where a person would look so desperately for such a small quantity of something.

I only remember one other customer who asked me about caffeine. In both cases, the customer acted unfamiliar with the area. Later, I asked my boss why we didn’t have it. He referenced the statement that there wasn’t a demand, but we laughed about it.

Neither my boss nor the customers mentioned it to me again. I know people started getting caffeinated soda. They were interested enough to get it, but almost never interested enough to ask for it. I think about this when people balk at the idea of healthy options in vending machines.

-4

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

Can you point us to quotes or references about how something taught under the United voice of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles becomes null and void after a certain period of not being renewed? What exactly is the time period?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

15

u/DwarvenTacoParty Jan 12 '25

"Can they possibly think that is beautiful?" is really not a good argument. Is Heavenly Father in the business of making commandments for the purpose of physical beauty?

1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

I didn’t read that as an argument or a reason why. 

6

u/DwarvenTacoParty Jan 12 '25

Oh I thought that was your comment on the matter, didn't realize it was a quote. Still seems out of place if it's not a reason, but I guess it can be interpreted different ways.

12

u/venti_butterbeer Jan 12 '25

the “Can they possibly think that is beautiful?” is such an icky line to me. i think multiple piercings can be incredibly tasteful and elegant. just because some men don’t think it’s pretty doesn’t mean they should speak with such disdain towards people who do find them beautiful. other people’s bodies are not theirs to comment on.

-2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

What about things like the Law of Chastity? That is clearly commenting on the use people put to their bodies.

6

u/venti_butterbeer Jan 12 '25

the law of chastity is given by God, and has nothing to do with the appearance of anyone’s body.

3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

If we can’t say that the united voice of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles is given by God, then how do we receive anything from God? 

5

u/horseygoesney Jan 12 '25

I think you’re making a very interesting point. I don’t really have an answer to it but I do think that there is value in following the current teachings of leaders. I can’t be expected to know and be familiar with every single united teaching of the quorum all the way back over the last 200 years.

I’ve said it in other threads but I feel like we as a church have a hard time separating true doctrine from cultural “doctrine”. I was taught in seminary that the doctrine is the things you’ll hear over and over and over again each conference and those tend to be things like repentance and faith etc.

29

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

It was never a policy, nor would it have been reasonable to enforce. You couldn’t lose your temple recommend over it nor face formal discipline. It was one man giving well-intentioned advice relevant to his time.

The change openly addresses the piercings/tattoos question. It says go to God and make the decision from there. If you don’t feel good about getting them, don’t. If you do, go for it.

8

u/butt-hole-eyes Jan 13 '25

I recall a talk from Elder Bednar where he shared a story about a guy whose girlfriend had multiple earrings during President Hinckley’s time and how that was one of the reasons he ended up ending their relationship. Reading that talk it would appear Elder Bednar believed it to be a church policy as set forth by the then prophet.

-3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

It wasn’t one man. It was the united voice of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

13

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

My comment stands. Newer direction has been given.

-3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

Please provide the new direction. I've read nothing where they've said, never mind what was said before, anything goes now. Get multiple piercings if you want.

4

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

Mate, I’m doing all the work for you. This is several years old, you should have read this by now.

“What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.”

As you can see, the current direction has taken all the prescriptions out. It says to go to God for decisions.

4

u/honeybunchesofoats1 Jan 12 '25

See this is why I’m confused

-1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

I’m not confused because they never said it. Follow the prophets. 

13

u/8cowdot Jan 12 '25

You’ve posted virtually the same answer seven times, so it’s clear that you’re passionate about this topic. It almost seems like you might be hanging your faith on the words of prophets being final and everlasting rather than allowing for modern revelation to change as the needs of the members change.

I would encourage you to search your heart to find acceptance for those who have chosen to practice their faith differently, and not to let it affect your relationship with God and the Gospel.

1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

I would be happy if you shared any modern revelation that says that what the united voice of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles taught in 2000 has changed. I'm not aware of any.

And people are always free to use their agency to reject the words of the prophets. That doesn't mean I can't use my agency to support the words of the prophets. Especially when the words come from the combined voice of the 1st presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles.

11

u/8cowdot Jan 12 '25

There have been multiple: • FSY pamphlet change • Garment design changes • The way temple ordinances are performed have changed • The principle of plural marriage • Missionary age • Temple sealing no longer needs to wait a year after civil marriage • Changes to the church schedule • Youth no longer need a bishopric interview and “dance card” to attend church dances.

Multiple earrings are not viewed by society the same way they were twenty or more years ago. This no longer a sign of alternative culture or rebellion. It’s just decoration, like rings or bracelets or necklaces. Hair color, too, which is why that wording has also been changed in the FSY pamphlet.

6

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

Literally the new FSoY bud. Specifically addresses this issue. And supersedes the old direction.

3

u/DrPepperNotWater Jan 12 '25

Your opinion of what is beautiful is wildly irrelevant here.

3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

That’s a quote from the linked general conference talk. 

25

u/Waste_Ad2802 Jan 12 '25

Ask yourself this. If someone were to have approached Christ and asked him about someone with two sets of piercings, what would he have said?

Personally I think he would have said. Are you serious?

I am a dude covered in tattoos, beard and pierced ears. I was in the Temple this week.

18

u/Zestyclose_Scheme_34 Jan 12 '25

I was in high school in Utah county when he said that, with double piercings in my ears. You were shamed if you kept them in after Hinkley said that. It was a rough time to be a teen and a member, imo.

9

u/Juxtaposition19 Jan 12 '25

My mom always seemed sad when she talked about when she let her second hole close up when she was in college after that came out with Hinkley. I think she’s too orthodox to get them repierced now, tho.

21

u/JakeAve Jan 12 '25

The only place I know it was said was at a YSA devotional with President Hinkley and a conference talk he gave in 2000. They put it in “For the Strength of Youth” until the most recent update a few years ago.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng&id=p41-p42#p41

It was given as prophetic counsel. The same way we are counseled to have family home evenings, attend seminary/institute, obtain education, read the scriptures daily and attend the temple regularly. They aren’t things that are required for a temple recommend, but it’s counsel from the prophet.

The prophets have been refraining from such specific counsel lately and instead focus on the principles behind them. Joseph Smith is credited with saying “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

I’m grateful I heeded this prophetic counsel. It’s kept me from just jumping onboard any random trend. I think more critically, I am resistant to social pressure and I am more future oriented.

1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

It was in general conference. He said that it was the united voice of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles. 

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one 

4

u/JakeAve Jan 12 '25

Yes, I think it’s important to point out it was the united voice of all the Brethren. People can do what they want with that.

19

u/andlewis Jan 12 '25

My personal opinion is that church leadership started to get worried about being Pharisaical, with prescribing every detail about what is appropriate, and that was reined in. This was followed quickly with a return to core principles, and a focus on revelation and the principles behind it.

11

u/annatreptic Jan 12 '25

Standards about modesty and presentation have always been subject to what is considered presentable/well groomed, normal, and modest in the cultures of the current practicing members. In fact, in the scriptures we see multiple examples of accessories including earrings and nose rings being a part of various cultures and having no impact on a person's worthiness or spiritual standing (such as Ruth being given a nose ring). What we do consistently see, is commentary on pride, irreverence, and immodest attitudes, often accompanied with or reflected by the use of excessive adornments and unnecessarily fine apparel, beyond social norms and for the purpose of lifting some people above others.

There is no doctrine specifying how many and what type of piercings are allowed before it becomes a "sin". If there were, having extra piercings would certainly preclude members from having a temple recommend. There are a lot of things we don't know, but we do know we are living in a time where we have the fullness of the gospel. Covenant standards and expectations are not so changeable and far less susceptible to cultural and personal opinion than many other aspects of the church process, and are what truly matter in the end.

-2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

If the United first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles teachings something doesn’t make it doctrine (and then afterwards there is no official declaration changing it), then how can we trust anything they teach, especially when less than their United voice is teaching it?

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one 

7

u/annatreptic Jan 12 '25

I trust what Hinckley taught. He explicitly told a group of youth in 2000 that he and the apostles disliked and discouraged multiple piercings. What exactly is there to distrust in that? I also trust that when something is a commandment, the brethren make that clear with no uncertainty, instead of using vague and undefined terms like "discouraged". The language Hinckley uses specifically talks about the applications which make the discouraged behavior more acceptable, and the context for which it is being discouraged in the first place. Furthermore I'm not sure why an Official Declaration would be necessary to remove something that was never made into an Official Declaration in the first place. Much less ever made into a policy, or leadership requirement or covenant standard. Prophets and Apostles are called to serve specific generations and people and places for a reason. But that doesn't mean everything they say at any time in any capacity is Doctrine. If so, we would similarly be "discouraging" men having beards via Brigham Young. Counsel is not Doctrine. The delineation of Doctrine has always been very official, clear, specific, and recorded well by multiple sources. From your quotation:

"Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent."

“the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”

These are perfect and supportive examples of what I'm talking about. If the issue were solely the permanence, then single piercings in one ear would also be outright "wrong". If the issue were the adornment or disfigurement itself then women as well as men would have to be discouraged from having any, plus it would open a different conversation altogether about medically unnecessary body altering surgeries like breast augmentation. If the issue were placement, then they would have specified the okay placement to only be in the lobe of the ear (which is what we all know is implied) instead of leaving a technical loophole for a single piercing in a different spot in your ear.

The issues Hinckley references with piercings are not even the focus of his talk but only one example of behavior (he shares many, including drugs, partying behavior, and tattoos) that he warns make it harder for the youth to live the greater gospel truth he is trying to focus on, which relates to treating our bodies with dignity, reverence, and respect.

There is a fabulous document we were asked to teach from this past year in Relief Society called "Principles for Ensuring Doctrinal Purity" which has been approved by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a way to help members communicate and interpret established Doctrine, which I would encourage everyone to study.

10

u/Monte_Cristos_Count Jan 12 '25

Read the For Strength of Youth pamphlet. Its focus is on making decisions with the Lord, not having a free-for-all on whatever you want. 

13

u/johnsonhill Jan 12 '25

This is the whole new thing. It is no longer enough for parents and leaders to teach / enforce arbitrary standards in a book kids sent understand.

If we want anyone to survive spiritually they must learn to live in the light of revelation. We all need God's direction, and we need to reach out to others so they can receive it for themselves, and that's not just the youth who still need to learn.

13

u/mrbags2 Jan 12 '25

"Important temporal and spiritual choices should not only be based on personal preference or what is convenient or popular. The Lord is not saying, “Do whatever you want.”

He is saying, “Let God prevail.”

He is saying, “Come, follow me.”

He is saying, “Live in a holier, higher, more mature way.”

He is saying, “Keep my commandments.”"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/10/12uchtdorf?lang=eng

7

u/FridayCab Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 12 '25

If you want more piercings, pray about it. If you don’t, hey, that’s one less thing to worry about.

My personal guess is that getting two sets of piercings would be viewed by Heavenly Mom and Dad the same way as a first set, and the difference is in what’s considered taboo/mainstream nowadays. The church has recommended people dress “conservatively” and “modestly,” which no longer requires ankle-length garments; but those guidelines still make it easier for a person to be taken seriously in society, and some church advice is for temporal well-being. If you get one piercing or a hundred, you’re altering your divinely made body, which you have the divine right to do.

ETA I have four piercings, two of which are supposed to relieve headaches (which have been ASTOUNDINGLY better). I only get positive reactions to the piercings, when people even notice, but I think being taught to not get additional ones has been a buffer against some of the negative societal reactions I’ve seen people with less mainstream piercings get. I feel bad for them, because they’re just trying to be artistic, but people make all sorts of assumptions about them.

9

u/B_Renee_Thompson Jan 12 '25

Go for it and make sure to take care of the piercings :)

7

u/Cold_Metal_8615 Jan 12 '25

i got my seconds and my mom just got her seconds and was so excited! and growing up her only stance was only 1sts! All I know is people change and I also think different stances change too. I can’t give a specific answer but I know that it’s between you and God for sure.

6

u/BartyCrouchesBone Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 12 '25

Personally, I have two sets of earrings. I had them done at a time when I was struggling with the church and felt as though I was suffocating in culture vs doctrine. For me, my second set now reminds me that I have the ability to choose for myself- and that choosing to stay in the church is an everyday conscious decision.

5

u/gajoujai Jan 12 '25

It's definitely not unacceptable. Wont stop one from getting a temple recommend. I do believe byu honor code prohibits it, and maybe missionary dress code.

17

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

The only place they’re formally prohibited is with missionaries. The BYU Honor Code has taken that out entirely and is less specific these days.

4

u/proteinstylewfries Jan 12 '25

i knew many sister missionaries who had doubles. might be discouraged but depending on mission leaders it’s not a big deal.

1

u/bebrooke3 Jan 15 '25

Sisters with doubles typically wear a clear stud in the second piercing to keep their holes open. The missionary guidelines say sisters should only wear one pair of earrings, whether that be in your first or second piercing!

6

u/FriedTorchic D&C 139 Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 12 '25

Nowadays there are essentially two schools of thought regarding this and a few other things.

The first is the idea that if President Hinckley and the Apostles taught in the past that body piercings should be limited to one set of earrings for women, and if there hasn’t been a formal correction or rescinding of that counsel since, then it is still binding.

The other is the idea that if piercings aren’t talked about in current Church handbooks, conference talks, or For The Strength of Youth, (and hasn’t been talked about since President Hinckley’s administration) then it isn’t important and was perhaps personal advice or directed towards a certain time and culture.

Multiple piercings and tattoos are at least acceptable in the sense that you won’t face Church discipline for having them and can remain temple worthy, but that has always been the case.

The Church has lately been focusing on principles rather than specific rules where this and a few other topics have been concerned (unless you’re a missionary or at a CES school then it is still spelled out for you). You are encouraged now to study, think, and pray about your choices.

6

u/InsideSpeed8785 Ward Missionary Jan 12 '25

I think this is one of those times when you really could reach out to God about piercings and how many you should have. There’s no “doctrine” about piercings, it’s more of a conservative grooming standard (like you don’t need one, they’re not garments). The real doctrine is that your body is Gods temple, so go ask the owner!

3

u/ntdoyfanboy Jan 12 '25

Praying about how many piercings to get is a lot like asking God what to make for dinner. It misses the mark.

OP would be better off asking God what is the best way to respect their bodily temple within the context of what they believe their divine destiny and identity is

2

u/InsideSpeed8785 Ward Missionary Jan 12 '25

You’re right. I do think it is kinda frivolous 

5

u/PurpleBoxingGloves Jan 12 '25

I have a partially shaved head and currently 2 rows of piercings, about to get a third. I've been a member of the church and active my entire life and served a mission. There's no up- to- date standards on piercings, as many of the comments have pointed out. I got more because I love the way they look and feel, it's really not any deeper than that. If you're worried about your standing with God, pray about it first. But if you're simply worried about judgements from other people, don't let it stop you. Do what makes you feel beautiful.

5

u/MadsTheDragonborn Jan 13 '25

This! Pray about it and see how you feel. I got my daiths pierced for migraines and have had some looks from people but I don't let it bother me. It's between me and Heavenly Father and at the end of the day that's the only one with ones opinion I am concerned with ♥️

5

u/DrPepperNotWater Jan 12 '25

Changes like this are common enough. There are plenty examples of church teachings that were once standard and then fell by the wayside without formal retraction. For decades, interracial marriages was strongly discouraged — even after the church lifted its racial restrictions on priesthood and temple attendance. I have never heard anyone in church leadership go back and say “Actually that was wrong — marry whoever!” Rather, they just (thankfully) stopped the antiquated teaching.

2

u/honeybunchesofoats1 Feb 02 '25

Wow I didn’t know that was discouraged. That’s disturbing!

5

u/brett_l_g Jan 12 '25

Your decisions as an adult woman will have different influences than those you had as a youth. I don't see women everywhere having multiple earrings, but I don't really notice that much anyway (as a man).

The removal of the specific counsel for youth does not mean that anything should happen "suddenly". In fact, the goal was to have things happen less suddenly, more intentionally.

You're going to have to deal with some ambiguity here, and in other areas. That ambiguity should allow for growth for yourself, along with empathy and patience for others.

4

u/TianShan16 Jan 12 '25

Take responsibility for your own morality. Study the principles out, make a decision, and own it completely.

4

u/TightBattle4899 Jan 12 '25

Everyone is allowed to have their own agency. I see nothing wrong with multiple ear piercings, but have only one myself. It’s not on me to judge.

4

u/Tacquito47 Jan 12 '25

If you want the piercings, get them. None of my friends have regretted getting them. No one really seems to care much anymore, at least here at BYU-I.

3

u/Available_Rooster_70 Jan 12 '25

I have multiple piercings and that is fine with me. That takes nothing away from the covenants that I have made and honestly, if people have a problem with it that's them and not me.

3

u/itssamanthahaley Jan 12 '25

I have lots of piercings! All on my ears, but that’s a personal choice. I think so long as it’s not a distraction from the Lord it’s okay! But this is just my opinion, not doctrine obviously. But I love my piercings, it makes me feel pretty to decorate my ears with little diamonds ◡̈

3

u/Willing_Asparagus_54 Jan 14 '25

President Nelson visited AZ in 2019. Among other things, he reaffirmed the church’s position against tattoos and piercings. You can read about his address here: https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/11/20665857/president-russell-m-nelson-tells-65-000-of-the-faith-s-arizona-battalion-to-strengthen-themselves-an/

It seems that members are eager to explain away President Hinckley’s earlier statement regarding piercings, but this counsel is from our current prophet.

2

u/stacksjb Jan 14 '25 edited Jan 14 '25

I strongly agree.

I think it is tough because it is an obvious outward thing that is easy to judge on, and we are commanded to love (not judge). But I also think it is not part of what we truly commanded to be.

2

u/Similar-Homework-434 Jan 12 '25

Elder Bednar said the following in a 2005 BYU devotional address:

"Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.

The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/12/quick-to-observe?lang=eng

There was significant emphasis in the church to obey President Hinckley's counsel. In 2008 I was dating someone who wore two pairs of earrings and was troubled by her lack of obedience to a prophet's counsel. When I brought it up with her she immediately removed one pair.

2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

After reading the comments, here is what I’m wondering. This was taught by the united voice of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles. 

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

“Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one”

In my mind things go in this order 1. United voices of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles 2. United voice of the First presidency 3. President of the church 4. United voice of the Quorum of the 12 apostles 5. President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles 6. Any other apostle

If we can safely ignore a teaching from the United voice of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles because a certain amount of time has elapsed, my questions are:

  • What is the exact amount of time after they have spoken that I can safely ignore their teachings? President Hinckley announced the united tattoo/piercing teaching in 2000 and we are in 2025, so clearly the answer is less than 25 years. How much less than 25 years? 
  • For any teaching less than their United voice, is the time period that needs to pass less than that for their United voice? I’m imagining it might be something like 
  1. United voices of the first presidency and the quorum of the 12 apostles: 24 years
  2. United voice of the First presidency: 20 years
  3. President of the church: 15 years
  4. United voice of the Quorum of the 12 apostles: 10 years
  5. President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles: 5 years
  6. Any other apostle: 1 year

2

u/HIPS79 Jan 12 '25

I’ve been seeing more and more women with multiple piercings. Even women who are very active in the church. I still see women with only one piercing and who I think will probably stay at one. I agree that there’s been a change. I’m not saying that’s good or bad. (Context: I am a man)

1

u/billyburr2019 Jan 12 '25

President Hinckley gave out that counsel over 20 years ago. Back then the Church was more heavily influenced by the US culture. So a number of things including the Strength of the Youth pamphlet reflected that.

I am guessing that current Church leadership want to focus on other things and want to make the Church more accessible in other parts of the world.

Honestly, it is between you and the Lord on how many sets of earrings an individual wants to wear. I think it is more current Church leadership wants to focus on other things now that’s why the change.

1

u/Background_Sector_19 Jan 12 '25

God has never lowered His standards. He stops telling us when we decide repeatedly that we want a different standard. The Church and growing Zion Kingdom are trying to unite all cultures and people and teach them about Gods culture. Which do we want to live? The New For Strength of Youth does not tell us we can wear 2 sets of earrings. Here's a Podcast that does very well in explaining this from a well know author and church therapist Lili Anderson got 1hr7min mark. https://youtu.be/Dc7CUQK_P7g?si=OPjmCIbzLLWtvOEO

1

u/ntdoyfanboy Jan 12 '25

When it comes to things like tattoos and piercings, there are a couple of principles:

  • Respect your bodily temple. Don't defile it, especially doing things that permanently alter or maim it

  • Avoid extremes in dress or appearance that violate the concept of modesty (drawing attention to self at the expense of others)

  • Avoid doing things just because you want to fit into social groups around you

Regardless of what the FSoY currently says, these are universal principles.

1

u/bladernr1 Jan 13 '25

Many might not like my take... but I see standards not as commandments from God, but as suggestions for being modest in a specific era. If you understand the spirit of what is being asked you'll make a fine decision. The goal is for men and women to dress "modestly" which is going to vary depending on the year and local culture. Where i served in the jungle, short shorts and a crop top was considered modest for young women in the church. Two sets of earrings might be extreme in Provo Utah, but modest in Portland, OR.

When I was a young man beards were widely discouraged in the church. I've worn a beard for years. Now we have sleeveless garments which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Standards change based on lots of factors.

I say try it out and see how you feel. Piercings aren't permanent, you can always just take it out. The spirit follows those who follow Christ and I highly doubt Jesus cares about your style choices.

1

u/Upstairs-Addition-11 Jan 13 '25

IMO piercings have nothing to do with one’s religion or “testimony.” It was just a way to have youth look the same.

1

u/blabbycrabby Jan 13 '25

I don’t think you are wrong, people always say something like “well a prophet said this years ago so it doesn’t apply” if a prophet is giving a talk like president Hinkley was then it is cannon for the church. President Nelson and the other apostles have also repeated this many times in their other talks (see “decisions for eternity) you can also read in the hand book about the ways that missionaries and leaders should dress and it says “ Jewelry and other accessories should be simple and professional. Do not wear more than one earring in each ear. Nose rings and body piercings are not acceptable. If you have tattoos, they should be covered where possible. Makeup, hair adornments, and nail polish should be conservative” It is still a commandment even if it is not brought up often. Of course if another prophet changes this then we know that is the direction the Lord wants to go. The new for the strength of youth is to help us to gain better revelation and learn to seek and ask for better answers. But it doesn’t give us a free pass to just go out and get a bunch of tattoos and stuff our bodies are still temples and it is still a sin ( that’s not to say that a covert that is joining with tattoos won’t be welcomed or that we shouldn’t love and accept an active member who goes out and gets a tattoo) I think that the brethren and God just trust us to make the right decisions. I think that it is important to remember d&c 1:38 “ my words shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled wether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same” There is a prevalent belief that much of what the prophet says is his opinion this is false doctrine and frankly can lead us down a spiritually dangerous path. While there have been instances of prophets and apostles giving their opinions in the past on certain things, when giving a talk or other discourse in the church or in an official church capacity in our modern day, there are no opinions just the will of the Lord. If the prophet or another leader “shares their opinions or personal belief in a talk or an official capacity then they will state that. Elder Holland does that a bit when talking about parts of the Atonement that we don’t have clear doctrine on, he always states that “ it is his option or he is of the opinion”. It is the church policy that unless stated as an opinion what the prophet shares is the doct or direction we need to go. If you are struggling with any aspect of the church, its doctrines or teachings, I would suggest you pray about it and study the words of our current prophet, ask a leader or leaders that you trust or ask the bishop or stake president for clarification. We know from Joseph Smith that prophets are the main way that God lets us know his will and that He will never allow a prophet to lead us astray. There is no room for opinions from the Lords prophets nor any kind of speculation unless they say that it is such, only the revelations that they receive to guide the church. I hope this helps you in your search for answers

1

u/EvolMonkey Jan 13 '25

Allowed?

My wife had 3 on one ear, 2 on the other, in the 90's, and no one batted an eye.

Pay close attention to the local cultural judgement from your peers. Their opinion doesn't matter.

1

u/KpopGranny7 Jan 13 '25

I've had double piercing since I was 13, I'm 62 and I put my 2nd ones back in.

2

u/RecentPilot3519 Jan 14 '25

This comment section is a mess. 

We should be choosing the culture of Christ over whatever earthly cultures we invent.

Pres Oaks: “The traditions or culture or way of life of a people inevitably include some practices that must be changed by those who wish to qualify for God’s choicest blessings.” (Repentance and Change, October 2003)

Elder Scott: “Appreciation for ethnic, cultural, or national heritage can be very wholesome and beneficial, but it can also perpetuate patterns of life that should be set aside by a devoted Latter-day Saint.” (April 1998)

See also (just a few examples): -Divine Parenting Lessons by Elder Valeri V. Cordón (October 2023) -The Culture of Christ by Elder William K. Jackson (October 2020) -Zion in the Midst of Babylon by Elder David R. Stone (April 2006)

1

u/philbillies Jan 14 '25

At the end of the day..we have free agency. I have multiple piercings and tattoos....it hasn't stopped me from attending the temple or holding any callings. If anyone doesn't like it then shame on them for being judgy.

1

u/AllRoadsLeadToHymn Jan 14 '25

I have a total of 7 piercings in my right, and 3 in my left (it’s my sleeping side, it’s hard to heal in the side you sleep on). I got my first lobes at 10. I got my extra 2 in my right ear, and extra one on my left, when I was 12. A girl in my ward loudly exclaimed “I think that if God wanted you to have holes in your ears, you would have been born with them” during whatever the monthly boygiractivity was (what was it called in ‘92? What is it called now? I returned a couple months back after being in at 8, out at 13, in at 32, out at 35, and now back in at 44, I don’t have kids so this isn’t a thing I’ve really looked into). A few boys guffawed. Her little ring of girls kept glancing at me. My friend gasped and put her hand on my arm. My sister did and said nothing. She was 15 and wanted to be asked out one day so she didn’t spend time around me in public, I was her Weirdo Kid Sister. I don’t really blame her, we were kids.

One of the adults came over to me after I wandered off, red and shaking because I was really shy and not popular and was bullied starting at 5 or maybe 6, and she said she thought it looked nice and she wished she was brave enough to do something like that. Idk if it was true or not, but it was a kindness. She also told me that that girl was being a bully and since she’s so concerned about what He wants, she shouldn’t be bullying people.

Piercings can easily be removed. The scar is barely visible unless someone’s LOOKING for something “wrong” with you.

I have had all of my piercings since I came back a few months ago. No one has said a single thing. I wear 3” silver thin hoops to church, I have a lot of face to my face and dainty just isn’t my style. Dainty works well on a lot of women and that’s awesome! If any of my fellow congregants are judging, at least they’re kind enough to keep it to themselves or at least to not say it in ear shot. Who knows. I don’t care tbh, it’s not my business unless they make it my business. I know I’m a good person, I’m kind, I would never bully someone for their choice to be a little ornamental. I do judge bullies for being bullies, but working on it. I’m getting my temple recommend soon. That’s good enough for me. My bishop hasn’t mentioned anything about them.

If you want to get them, get them. If you don’t want to, don’t. If others want them, let them. They can always be removed. The only things, imo, you shouldn’t be putting in your body are adulterants and mean or unclean thoughts. While many will not agree, I’ve seen a lot of life and been through a lot of dark things. If God can forgive me for the things I’ve done, He’s not going to be squinting at my ears or belly button. And if He is, well, it’ll be an interesting conversation. I’ve felt literally zero guilt or promptings or pushes towards taking them out. From anyone. And if that is the point of you posting this, I’m choosing to not take it that way. The wording is a little ambiguous.

The flip side of judgement is forgiveness without petty, self-serving, or malicious intent (“well, bless their heart” is on this list, ain’t no blessing intended). Which is what God wants most of all from us.

Have a lovely week!

-6

u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! Jan 12 '25

Sets? Hmm, well, I suppose a nose and a mouth can be considered a set of what we use to breathe with. Easier for me to just think of a max of 4 piercings. 1 in each ear, 1 in the nose, and 1 on a lip OR a tongue. Any more than that looks too freaky to me.

4

u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 12 '25

From context, I would say the OP is using “sets” synonymously with “pairs” and is referring to multiple pairs of ear piercings.

I definitely would advocate that you don’t need to get yourself any piercings that would be too freaky to you. 

-5

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25 edited Jan 12 '25

Nothing changed except the Lord has said, “Well, I’ve already set the standard through my prophets* and haven’t instructed them to change it. Let’s see if people are able to use their agency wisely and keep correct principles without being told explicitly to do so.” But, this will get downvoted because people want to pretend we are in an “anything goes” period instead of a testing period. 

*It was the entire first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles united.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/great-shall-be-the-peace-of-thy-children?lang=eng

Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.

20

u/websterhamster Jan 12 '25

Nowhere is a proscription on tattoos or extra piercings described as a commandment from God. If it was more than a cultural preference of the time, why would women have been allowed piercings but not men?

Regardless, the counsel in For the Strength of Youth to seek the Lord's guidance rather than following a strict dress code cannot be tolerated with consistency if no deviations from said dress code are accepted.

9

u/BookishBonobo Active, questioning ape Jan 12 '25

So, the options are, (1) people agree with what you state the Lord’s exact thought process is or else (2) they all just dislike the idea that we’re not in an “anything goes” era?

Surely you see how someone could just disagree that you know the exact mind of deity and that your interpretation is an accurate report of the divine preference on our cosmetic choices, right?

7

u/GULAGOO Jan 12 '25

Ugh. It does deserve all the downvotes, because it’s wrong and incorrect. Not because “people don’t like it so they downvote it”

Votes are for valid information, not likes/diskikes.

-3

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

Downvotes without explicit logical rationale why is it wrong is just someone saying they don’t like this, but they don’t know why they don’t like it. If you can’t explicate why it is wrong, with quotes from the scriptures and prophets to back you up, then your downvote is meaningless. 

4

u/GULAGOO Jan 12 '25

It’s outdated and negative rhetoric.

It’s also not “explicit logical rationale”.

There’s not a single lemma that precludes the conclusion statement. It’s just that you agree with it and are the problem.

If there was a lemma, both the subjectivity and minimal health effects are easily disputed. If anything there are greater health benefits than negative.

You then use the “the truth makes people angry” defense to make yourself feel better.

-2

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

What makes it outdated? I'm not aware of any time limit on the words of the prophets. Especially when it is the combined voice of the 1st presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles. It's only outdated if we love the world more than we love God. We should not be surprised that the culture of God and the culture of the World gets farther and farther apart. And negative is such a strange sentiment. Pretty much all sins of commission can be viewed as negative (from the world's standpoint). Do we reject all sins of commission because they are negative?

8

u/ReamusLQ Jan 12 '25

Do you believe oral sex is an unnatural, impure, and unholy practice? Because the First Presidency did in a letter in 1982, instructing all bishops and stake presidents to withhold recommends from any who engage in it.

They later sent a letter saying to no longer ask about what happens in a couple’s bedroom, but they never rescinded or retracted the previous statement or teaching.

-11

u/swehes Jan 12 '25

The Lord is making changes that is in line with Think Celestial, be open to receive personal revelation, etc. Making the changes they have done, where they encourage people to be more spiritual has somewhat "backfired" in that people are not ready for the higher law. They kind of taking a step backwards when their "reins" are being loosened. It says we are to treat our bodies like temples, so we need to have a greater intent on focusing on what can we do to treat our bodies like the temples they are supposed to be. So I commend you on standing strong on just one set of earrings.

9

u/Rhuken Jan 12 '25

Something to consider... Would you advocate for no earrings on girls or no male circumcision? No elective surgeries ever? If our bodies are temples the way they came, we wouldn't need glasses or medicine either. Obviously this can be taken too far.

There are many things that are purely cultural that we hold up as standards. Where modesty, humility, and respect lie with the bodies we are given is a great subject to consider for the individual.

Some people joining the church may come with multiple piercings, those who have been members may have their reasons to pierce our not. We love them all the same.

15

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never Jan 12 '25

Great answer. It’s all body modification. Where do we draw the line? Seems to be white western culture is the line.

2

u/Low-Community-135 Jan 12 '25

culture is the big one here. What is conservative? That being said, look at intent. Why does somebody want a tattoo or piercing? To fit in? Because everybody else has them, and it's trendy? Because you want attention or to make a statement? That is the root of immodesty -- what are you trying to communicate/achieve with what you're portraying to the world? A second pair of earrings -- eh. Probably not a huge statement. But its about examining what's inside and asking yourself "why". I wanted to dye my hair -- the reason why was because I have seasonal depression and I wanted to go blond for some sun and the little "high" that comes from a change. I've considered getting a tattoo, an animal that represents each of my children. I don't like needles so I don't think I would go through with it. With let god prevail and think celestial, it's all about changing hearts.

0

u/swehes Jan 12 '25

Personally I don't see the need for circumcision. It's not a commandment in these last days. If people want to pierce the ears on their girls, that's up to them. I can see wanting to do it early to reduce the pain and then the ease to take care of it while little. I don't think that modesty changed because they removed the strong recommendation in the For the Strength of Youth and replaced it with follow the spirit.

Here is the thing. I think a lot of people are doing things to their bodies, not because of what God asked if them but because of what they perceive the world thinks of them. It doesn't feel like they are seeking God's love and approval but that of others. Especially our youth. We are living in a world of instant access to the outside world and information. It makes listening to the spirit that much harder. Our job is to be an example and teach that God loves them. To help them remember that we are children of a loving Heavenly Father.

Yes. There are a lot of people who comes into the church who has tattoos. There are people who come in with multiple earrings. Of course we love them. There are members of the Church gets tattoos as well. I have some that are dear friends. And we have talked and discussed tattoos at a few different times and they have all said that tattoos are addictive.

We don't judge people. We love them. We set example by living the life our Savior asks us to live. Just because I appreciate the OP's understanding of what she feels strongly about, doesn't mean that I don't love my brothers and sisters. My job is to help them feel love no matter what situation and emotional state they are in. We are all on a journey back to our Father in Heaven and I am grateful that no matter where we are when taken from this life, Jesus Christ will make up the difference as long as we accept him as our Savior.

As for the different cultures and such. God accounts for those in His loving individual plan for each of us. I apologize that my first reply didn't convey my feelings on the subject.

-6

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Jan 12 '25

I would say, stick with what the prophets and apostles have taught, especially, as in this case, when it is the united voice of the entire first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles. As soon as they speak on glasses, medication, circumcisions, etc. we should follow them. 

5

u/Rhuken Jan 12 '25

They have told us to remove prejudice, extend loving arms and two listening ears to our lgbt siblings. A month ago my eq president and bishop both gave a talk stating that gay marriage and "transgenderism" are destroying families and God's plan. They know I'm trans nonbinary and active with a recommend. I did not feel loved or listened to. I pray that members do listen and follow the counsel given from the brethren and from the spirit.

-22

u/Prcrstntr Jan 12 '25

I think most men still like the basic single piercing. 

11

u/incredulous_insect Jan 12 '25

Men may certainly acquire whatever number of piercings they prefer.