(Painting by Ron Wilson)
Are fancy wedding dresses culturally idolatrous?
A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to attend our stake Relief Society presidency meeting, which all ward RS presidencies and some random people like me (I’m humanitarian chairperson) attended.
Throughout this hour and a half, I was surprised at how much men were speaking at this RS meeting. From what I saw, they spoke at least half the time. (But that’s a post for another day….).
Perhaps the most intriguing part of the evening came during our stake president’s portion of the evening. In the process of speaking about young women’s transition to RS, he strongly advised women leaders to encourage young women to avoid “cultural idolatry” as they planned to buy their wedding dresses. He found it extremely distasteful that women bought big, ornate wedding dresses that had to have inserts put in to make them proper for a temple wedding. “Cultural idolatry” he firmly called it again, and promoted the idea of women getting married in a simple dress that could serve as a temple dress for the next ten years.
I had a very mixed reaction to his advice. On the one hand, I suppose I can agree that ornate wedding dresses could be a form of cultural idolatry and in principle, I like the idea of not going over the top materialistically. But come on. If wearing a fancy wedding dress is cultural idolatry, what about the huge house he owns, the Mercades he drives, or the very expensive suits he and his counselors wear? That’s definitely got to fall under that label as well. It seemed a bit unfair to me to specifically target young women, many of whom fantasize about this being the most special day of their lives and want an outfit that reflects that specialness. If he had extended his “cultural idolatry” advice to other realms as well, I would have been much more comfortable.
I’m interested in hearing your reactions to this stake president’s advice. Do you agree that women are culturally idolatrous if they don’t wear a simple wedding dress? Was it appropriate for him to give such advice (on what is clearly his own personal hobbyhorse) under the mantle of stake president? What are other – better – ways to talk about the issue of cultural idolatry?
I don’t know that I’d call a fancy wedding dress cultural idolatry. I would call it a violation of the Book of Mormon’s many admonitions that we avoid expensive and ornate clothing. But I’m not sure that anyone living in violation of the Book of Mormon’s strong recommendations to seek economic equality among the Saints has a leg to stand on in such criticism. Really, the fancy-dress and excessive wealth prohibitions stem from the same basic moral principle.
It would drive me nuts to no end that he has a big house and a mercedes and all and is saying a dress is idolatry. When I got married, I was living in New York and had a hard time finding anything that was even appropriate for garments. We had to have so many alterations made, and I still had to wear the little jacket at the temple. I would have either walked out, or taken the time to argue with the man.
Stuff like this drives me up the wall. I agree with the general principal of having a modest and appropriate wedding dress, however, it is not necessary that our wedding dress be our temple dress, or else the temple would have just told us to get married in our temple dresses and not go through the whole ordeal of guidelines for appropriate wedding dresses. It sounds like a personal pet peeve of the speaker (instead of any meaningful doctorine) to me.
Though of course, I do agree that our wedding dress should be modest and not overly elaborate, as everything else we own should be. Just like members shouldn’t spend tens of thousands of dollars on a Rolex watch, neither should they spend that much on a wedding dress. But that’s the choice of the bride and she should have her free agency (and guidance from the spirit) to help her make her decision
It seems like a good ol’ fashioned 2x standard to me. While this opinion may be certainly his own, and doesn’t reflect on the Church necessarily, I feel that the LDS culture (and many others) implicitly encourages this sort of attitude/thinking/behavior.
I don’t agree that wedding dresses are cultural idolatry, not one whit. They are a product of our cultural mores, but that’s it. Sheesh. I can’t imagine that many girls would want to be at their wedding recpetion wearing a temple dress. Yuck.
FWIW, I had a wedding dress that t cost less than a SP’s Sunday suit. But it wasn’t temple-worthy because of its short sleeves (it was summer and HOT outside!). I thiought the insert/jacket thing was lame, so I just didn’t wear ithe wedding dress for the actual ceremony–I wore a white blouse and a long white skirt to be married in. I still wear that same white skirt when I attend the temple (tho the white blouse is long out of fashion).
I’m keeping the simple white wedding dress because I want to be buried in it (I figure I can get away with the short sleeves in my casket).
I have more than once advised girls to wear a simple dress (one that will go on to be their temple dress) when getting married in the temple. But for entirely different reasons: It doesn’t matter because your don’t really see it, all the fluff (if its fluffy) makes it hard to sit and kneel, and you are much more limited in style and color, etc. But then I help them find/make a fabulous dress for the reception/party. One that reflects their personality and is also modest. I think Mormon brides-to-be can think outside of the box when it comes to their weddings given that they are already different from a “traditional wedding” but if what they have always wanted is a traditional, white, fluffy, beaded, lacy gown I would never think of them as culturally idolatrous. It seems like there are far better things to put that label on.
I think ornate wedding dresses could very well classify as cultural idolatry, but I think there are many other things unmentioned but commonly consumed that deserve the same classification.
I can see where weddings in general can get very out of hand and put people in serious debt. But that doesn’t seem to be what the SP was talking about. I agree with Aaron that it’s a serious double standard. It’s also a complete abuse of power for the SP to use his position of authority to promote a personal agenda.
Why does it matter to him anyway? Every woman should feel beautiful on her wedding day and not feel judged. Aren’t there way more important things he could worry about? I get so tired of the pettiness.
Okay, lets say that I’m chinese, (I’m not but go with me on this one). As far as I know traditional Chinese wedding dresses are often red for good luck. It is a cultural tradition. Would this same stake president suggest that chinese women forgo their heritage so they could wear a dress that could serve as their temple dress for the next 10 years?
Fluffy short sleeved scoop necked dresses with a long veil are as much a part of my American heritage as a red dress is part of Chinese traditions.
I’m all for avoiding idolatry, and no one should spend more on a wedding dress than they can afford. I think he falls on his face when he necessitates that the wedding dress serve as a temple dress. The only similarity between the two is that they are both white, and often the wedding dress isn’t white enough (antique white, off-white, slight lavender hue etc.). Just because a temple sealing does the same thing as a secular wedding doesn’t make the two the same thing. I wore my wedding dress when I celebrated my wedding (at the reception), it was nothing more that the traditional costume that I wore to the party.
Using a failsafe test, would he have been reprimanded if he said that men shouldn’t wear black tuxes to the wedding, but should buy a simple white jumpsuit that can serve as his temple clothes for the next ten years? I think he would have been skinned alive.
I would love to hear a sermon on the cultural idolatry of SUVs.
Starfoxy – you bring out a good point about men wearing their white temple clothes to the reception – they’d be totally laughed off. What is this double standard between men and women. (Though to be fair, I don’t think that the SP probably thought that far).
And just to add to your comment. I am Chinese and chose not to wear a Chinese wedding dress (because I got married in America), but many of my relatives do and will wear the traditional garb. It’s part of their culture. Similar to Japanese church members and their kimonos. In fact, most members in Japan wear their kimonos to church (just on special occasions though). It is by no way cultural idolatry, but cultural tradition.
Getting married in one’s “Wedding Dress” at the temple is, in the vast majority of cases, just plain tacky. Idolotry smimolotry. I always shake my head when I see a woman with train wrapped up, in her robes, and with a dress that has been bastardized to meet Temple standards.
Get married in a temple dress; wear the wedding dress at the reception. Just like the men.
Now, as many have pointed out, the castigation of the wedding dress in the temple isn’t particularly more idolotrous than any other cultural extravagence. I would say that the Stake Pres. was definately wrong in his reasoning; but, reasons aside, I agree with the idea of encouraging women not to go there.
“I always shake my head when I see a woman with train wrapped up, in her robes, and with a dress that has been bastardized to meet Temple standards.”
I’m sad to see how judgemental people are about this. Many girls dream their whole lives about their wedding. They have dreamt and fantasized about the day, and they only get to wear this beautiful, expensive dress once. Can you really begrudge them wanting to wear it as much as possible? Again I say,I get so tired of the pettiness.
I wore my wedding dress to the wedding. I loved it. It was perfect. I looked fabulous in it. It was everything that I wanted in a wedding dress. It was not “bastardized”, but it did have to be altered to be garment friendly (it started out as an off the shoulder dress. Obviously not an option, although I must say in the original state it did show off my clavicles magnificently :)). I felt beautiful, joyful, excited, and I still smile every time I look at the pictures and when I pull the dress out. The temple clothes fit fine over it, and I put on the more traditional wedding veil for the reception after the temple. It was JUST FINE!
My SIL, on the other hand, picked a dress that was slightly dressier than a usual temple dress, but quite a bit plainer than your average wedding dress. She wore it both to the wedding as well as the reception. She still wears her wedding dress to the temple, and she says she feels happy to wear the dress she was married in every time she goes to the temple. And you know what? That’s JUST FINE TOO!
Sheesh, what a ridiculous thing to be talking to the young women about. Let’s focus on getting them to the temple first, shall we?
As a complete aside, this post title is a perfect example of why “interesting” is on the “banned words list” in my classroom. 🙂
On topic (well kind of) if I could have pulled it off, I would have worn a wedding sari. Have you seen the embroidery work? Puts the beadwork on my gown to shame.
Hi everyone, thanks for all the great comments! Like some of you pointed out there did seem to be a touch of the double standard about his advice.
Like Heather, I had a traditional wedding dress and had to put a shell under it, but I still thought it looked fine. And temple clothes fit fine over it as well.(Though I appreciate Carrie’s comments about how one might as well save the fun dress for the reception.)
Excellent points, Starfoxy and Beata. J. Stapely, funny how different things strike different people as tacky. To each his/her own.
AmyB, I also thought this was a strange and picky (petty) thing to address when there are so many other more important topics. (Not that cultural idolatry is not a big deal, but the very specific direction of his concern was picky.) Deborah, glad you appreciate the many possible interpretations of “interesting” 🙂
All I can say is people in glass houses. If your SP has his fancy house and car etc etc then who is he to talk about ornate wedding dresses?
I agree the more modest the better and too fancy isn’t MY taste, but it gets me that someone who can’t see that he is falling under that heading feels impressed to preach to brides. Excuse me. And you can tell him that from me. Hypocrisy with a capital H.
Wearing an $800 dollar suit for 4 years and driving a nice car is one thing. Buying a $3000 dollar dress and wearing it once is another. I think that is what the SP was talking about.
“Many girls dream their whole lives about their wedding. They have dreamt and fantasized about the day, and they only get to wear this beautiful, expensive dress once.”
That quote sums up all that is distorted about weddings – I wont even get into buying a ring that instantly looses half its value the second it leaves that store.
“I wont even get into buying a ring that instantly looses half its value the second it leaves that store.”
Right. Because everybody buys wedding rings based on their investment and appreciation value rather than as a token of commitment.
Since when did literally throwing money away become a token of committment? Its more of a token of social status these days
“It sounds like a personal pet peeve of the speaker (instead of any meaningful doctorine) to me.”
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
And you can get the same dresses cheaper in different parts fo the country, (utah is much cheaper than NYC) find great sales, or make the dress if you’re really concerned about the cost reflecting idolatry. I don’t think people should go into huge debts for weddings they can’t afford, but I do think it’s a bride’s right to look and feel beautiful, not spend the whole day going “I hate this dress, but at least it was cheap.”
I’m sure that when we pass through the veil, the first question will be “how much did your wedding dress cost?”
Umm… Anonymous – you say that “driving a nice car is one thing” and then going into how buying a ring to looses half of its value is merely a token of social status. Most nice cars that you buy loose a significant part of its value once it’s bought also. How do you justify that? Besides, a wedding ring gets way more years of usage than a nice car.
And by the way, how long you use something has no impact on the excess it involves. Just because you can wear an $800 suit for 4 years doesn’t mean it justifies it. You can also wear a $200 for 4 years. Even though you can drive a $30,000 car for 10 years, you can also drive a $10,000 car for 10 years. Not to justify that spending $3000 wedding dress is right, but the excess on the suit and the car is just as hideous as the excess on the dress.
To the wiz: I think you hit it right on the point about how much you spend on the wedding dress doesn’t necessarily translate into how attractive it is. I personally had my dress made for about $200 and it was beautiful (in my opinion, which is really all that matters). Many of my friends who got married recently did very similar things and had beautiful wedding dresses for not much money.
Besides, money doesn’t even necessarily equate cultural idolatry – that’s something that comes from the heart. My aunt’s house was recently renovated, at the same cost as my parent’s house (as in buying the whole house) She also has two cars – a BMW and a Mercedes. Is it excess? Sure, it’s a bit of excess. But can you blame her when she has no mortgage (she wrote a check for her house), a heftly retirement account, gives full support of her parents, donates heftily to all kinds of charities?
$3000 means much more to some of us than to some others.
Perhaps the Stake President is in the same situation as your Aunt? Anyone ever think of that?
Anonymous,
You could at least give your name. So it’s ok for someone to spend a pot of money on a fancy car, which the price it cost could feed a small country? Why not buy a decent priced good vehicle instead? And wedding dresses don’t all cost $3000.00. Mine was beautiful, made by my aunt, not overly fancy, but not a plain jane dress either, and it cost under $300.00. My wedding rings I cherish because they are a token of commitment. They didn’t cost a lot either. But I cherish them and will wear them always NOT as a social status, you cynical person, but because they remind me of the day I married my husband for eternity and they symbolise our marriage and the vows we made to each other and to God.
And don’t you, or anyone begrudge a girl her wedding day. So what if she wants a train, or flowers, or rings, etc. She is getting married, it is very special and she deserves to be Queen for a day. There will be many days where she puts on whatever clean jogging pants she can find, where she will be happy to run a brush through her hair, where she sacrifices a new dress for months, or yes, even years, so her children have clothes to wear and food to eat. Let her be a princess for one day.
mary, heather O, wiz, and beata, I am definitely sympathetic to your points.
It seems as if anonymous believes it’s ok to spend a lot of money on something as long as you get a lot of use out of it (with the exception of rings). Anonymous, why are rings the exception? And if it’s about signs of social status, wouldn’t a luxury car be in the same category as a ring?
I suppose I’m just searching for some consistency, both in anonymous’ comments and in my SP advice.
First of all, my name is Jennifer. Second, I dont think the SP was talking about dresses that cost $300. I think he was talking about dresses that are outrageously expensive when the couple getting married cant afford it. (as well as the ring) Im guessing he can afford his current lifestyle.
Third, I didnt start to post here in order to be called names and attacked.
Sorry Jennifer, that the exchange felt like an attack. (I like to think of it as vigorous debate 🙂 ) Seriously, I welcome different points of view and would love for you to explain more where you are coming from.
I apologise for calling you cynical, Jennifer. It’s just it felt like you were begrudging women the right to feel beautiful, and honoured and have a wonderful wedding. I don’t believe in all the big expensive weddings either, but I don’t think there is anythign wrong with some festivity and this SP who is spouting this off while living in his big fancy house and driving an expensive mercedes, well that to me speaks more of status and self importance than a beautiful, decorated wedding dress.
I think of it as a vigourous debate too. You should see the vigourous debates on Our Thoughts. woohoo, talk about name calling (and I am sorry you thought I was calling you a name, I didn’t mean to. I don’t call people names, well except politicians, but they’re a special case).
Caroline, does the SP have daughters or daughters-in-law with whom he might have observed and clashed personally with on the wedding dress issue? Just curious where his vehemence is coming from…
I don’t think it’s an appropriate topic for the RS presidency meeting and if that’s what he was talking about to you, imagine the YW presidency meeting! This took away from time that could have been spent addressing the real needs of the Relief Society…much more important than dresses of any kind.
Even if he’s 100% right about it (which he isn’t in my book) this was a waste of impact–how many “this is how to plan a righteous wedding & reception” lessons have you had? Talk to the parents, talk to the young women–they have primary responsibility.
Why hijack a Stake Relief Society meeting?
To me it is hypocritical to criticize young girls for ornate wedding dresses, if he is living in a big house with a fancy car, etc. However, I live in southern California, and I do think that some of the local LDS weddings are over-the-top ostentatious. With the many new temples in different parts of the world, there have been a few Mormon “destination weddings” from this ward, where fifty or so family members and friends flew off to an exotic location just for the wedding. We’ve also had incredibly expensive receptions for some lately, involving catered sit-down dinners for 200 or so, and it seems to me that the whole thing’s become pretty competitive. However, the house and car thing is also pretty competitive in our stake, as well as the prestige vacation– so only criticizing the dress seems hypocritical at best to me.
On a different note, when I was married, my dress had long sheer sleeves. No one at the temple said anything about them being a problem. 8 months later, a friend used the same dress to be married in the same temple, and the temple workers made her wear a dickie thing, and extra sleeves under it. Odd how the “standards” were enforced differently.
It also occurs to me that this wouldn’t be an issue if the church would allow sealings to immediately follow a secular wedding as they do in Europe. It would also solve a more important problem– the wounded feelings of non-LDS family members who can’t attend the temple sealing. Have the sealing in a nice temple dress. Have a simple wedding ceremony and reception in a traditional wedding dress.
I think the SP was thoughtful (perhaps inadvertantly) in his choice of venue to air his particular gripe. Since he wasn’t actually adressing young women, you can opt not to pass along his “advice” about wedding/temple dresses and instead discuss more significant examples of cultural idolotry. Starting with the cars in the church parking lot.
Interesting what wads some people’s knickers, isn’t it? My guess is he got stuck paying for a lavish wedding dress unsuitable for later temple wear. 😉
Or maybe he was inspired to say it right then at that particular moment. I know its shocking, but that kind of thing does happen sometimes. Even at Relief Society meetings
Why is it that whenever someone feels like posting a sarcastic comment they do it under “Anonymous”?
To paula: I agree about wishing that the church allowed for a secular wedding immediately followed by a temple wedding. No one in my family is LDS, and so it hurt they very much to not be able to see me get married. I made my ring ceremony as much like a marriage ceremony as I could, but it just wasn’t the same for my mom.
Though I know that the church allows for that in Europe (at least in the UK) because marriages are only valid if they take place at a public facility. It’s a remnant of some old Middle Age law or something like that. Anyhow, because attendance at the temple is restricted, it’s not considered a public venue, so people in the UK have to have a “public” wedding before getting sealed privately. Maybe we can just form a political movement for there to be the same law in the US 😉
I didnt make the post, but what makes you think it was sarcastic?
I am more interested in the use of our young women as the battleground in fighting cultural mores. Sociologists watch this kind of thing to see where an organization is headed…once the grassroots start doing something will it be assimilated by the leadership? The YW leaders in our church turned my daughter into a modesty Nazi…she will not wear anything that even looks like it might be sleeveless and she won’t wear any variety of shorts. They made silly rules like not wearing the swimsuits that had separate long tops and bottoms that covered everything because they were still “two piece”. My daughter wouldn’t buy camis with lace at the top when I took her shopping last week because they are being told that it looks like “lingerie”. She said that the BYU bookstore removed all of the tops with lace at the bottom. It is one thing to have these sorts of things coming down from above but they seem to be coming up from below. Does this mean Mormons are feeling a need to return to stricter rules?
Jennifer:
“I know its shocking, but that kind of thing does happen sometimes” in regards to revelation during Relief Society meetings.
“My daughter wouldn’t buy camis with lace at the top when I took her shopping last week because they are being told that it looks like “lingerie”. She said that the BYU bookstore removed all of the tops with lace at the bottom.”
Does anyone else feel like tearing out their hair when stuff like this comes up? I remember having a friend at Ricks (now BYU Idaho) in the late 90s, who told me at that time that v-necks were banned because they were “too suggestive.”
Juliann, in response to your question about mormons feeling a need to return to stricter rules, I think there will always be a group of people who want to do that. It’s a scary thing to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling- it taps into our deepest existential anxieties. Having lists of rules helps people cope with that anxiety. They feel assured that they are a good person if they can follow all the rules, and the more rules the safer they feel because they don’t have to make their own decisions.
I remember as a young woman going through the scriptures and trying to find a simple list of things I could do that would assure me that I was good enough. It sounds silly now, but I think that is the same phenomenon.
Wow, Juliann, I’m blown away by YW leaders going that far in lessons on modesty. How sad. I think excessive attention and such conservative concrete advice can lead to some unhealthy attitudes.
For example, I have a friend of a friend who was so unmercifully drilled in modesty that she took it further than it had to go. She’s in her late 20’s now but this has been going on since she was 12. Refuses to buy/wear a swimsuit (any kind). Wears grandma underwear her mom bought her years ago, now full of holes, but is too embarrassed to buy new underwear. Wears baggy and completely out of date clothing. etc.
It’s unfortunate because i know she desperately wants to be married, but realistically, I don’t know how she will have the confidence to attract guys when she’s so hung up on absolute modesty and purity in the form of completely unattractive clothes. (though of course in an ideal world, wonderful men would see beyond the surface and appreciate her for her great internal qualities.)
I think the pendalum is swinging to the right right now, but I hope our general leaders have the sense to focus on principles (righteousness, modesty) and not prescriptions (no lace on camis, etc.) After all, this is a world wide church now, and cultures are so different that specific prescriptions would not make a lot of sense in a lot of situations.
“I don’t know how she will have the confidence to attract guys when she’s so hung up on absolute modesty and purity in the form of completely unattractive clothes.”
Why on earth would this affect her confidence? Just because she doesnt dress stylishly doesnt mean she isnt confident.
A decent guy will know her for her. And lets face it and be honest, a shallow guy will evaluate her for how heavy she is, not how she dresses.
Just because she doesnt dress stylishly doesnt mean she isnt confident
David. Very true. Doesn’t necessarily mean that. But in this particular case, she’s got such a body issue complex/modesty complex that it (and other things no doubt) has happened to hurt her confidence in feeling good about herself and therefor perhaps attracting guys. Unfortunately.
Firstly, we should consider that we got this story from only one observer. It’s called perspective, and everyone’s is different.
Secondly, the desire for bigger and better when it comes to rings, dresses and celebrations is indeed idolatry. We were flat broke when we got sealed and and had a reception and dress that cost half of what most people spend on their dresses. It was still a lot of fun, it was still eternal, and I still felt like a princess.
Third, a SP is in a completely different season in their life than a YW. I have tattoos, but I wouldn’t tell the youth to go out and do it because my place in life is VERY different from theirs. A business man’s tool of his trade may be a quality suit, but a fancy dress or reception is NOT a tool to make a marriage work. Generally it’s just keeping up with the Jones’ or wanting to have it all. Sadly, this is the real world and those things simply aren’t always feasible.
I must confess that I don’t remember what my wife was wearing in the temple. Something white, I’m pretty sure.
This is very interesting site… 1954 88 f oldsmobile Price for lg internet fridge freezer Big black dick white slut Wwe divas nude hardcore chic toddler car seat covers http://www.big-cocks-4.info/Babe-fucking-monster-cock.html w baccarat strategy Shear women’s swimwear venlafaxine and bipolar disorder Big breast tranny s lightweight safety shoe Neurontin tinnitus tmj tinnitus tinnitus recovery Free bingo no download for cash Sexxxy-singles.com free live sex cam Bi-sexual threesomes big dicks of the week cocks huge porn
I don’t think that I’d call all wedding dresses cultural idolitry; some women getting married may certainly some times go over the top perhaps but is this still not what they dreamed of doing since being little?
I am currently finishing preperations for my own wedding and I have short sleves on my gown that are lace but with no lining may be called see through, it also has alot of detail and a detachable train. Options are available for those who don’t want to ware 2 dresses on their wedding day ask any of your RS presidents, Bishops or anyone you know that has already gone through the Temple. Have your day the way you planned it ware the dress you want as long as you feel comforable and think you wont feel embarrased about any comments people will make about it but if you find you may feel uncomfortable then maybe it’s not as modest as you thought.
It is very hard for a woman to find a modest wedding dress and if you cant and you won’t budge on having sleeves of some sort than my suggestion for you is have one made this could even work out to be cheaper or the same price as one in the shop.
As for the Steak President, although as hypercritical as what he said may seem I personally feel he did not go the right way about what it was he wanted to express. I fully agree with him that church leaders should encourrage the people of their wards/Steaks to dress and act morraly as this is important to all. It may look and have the apearance that he was set out aginst the women of the steak but this was probably because it was stricktly for RS members these same issues are discussed with the preisthood of the church also (being modest and having cultural idolitry influences in their lives).
To me even if he has a big house and a fancy car I will say that if he has erned them then he is entitled to them regardless of how he acts, and what I felt he must have been trying to get accross about wedding dresses was that you should ware something that is supposed to represent your spirituallity and cleanlyness to be pure and chase in the eyes of God not something that would demote you of your inherited blessings from your father in Heaven. You should stand for what you believe in and try to be a possative inflluence in the live of others and if it’s not something they particularly want to hear then perhaps even you may come accross the wrong way to them as being looked at in the same respect that Steak President was in. Maybe misjudging some one because our pride was hurt could even be led to ourselves being misjudged?
Please remember I am mutual in all of this I do not believe in taking sides but in believing in my leaders no matter how they come accross! If he firmly believes in what he’s saying then who am I to judge “let he without sin cast the first stone”