frankenstein Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 mansquatch shows the value is asking question. I had a job and lots of things were considered to be the "way" it suppose to done. The department head one day stated "Everything will be done by the book, if it is not in the book do not do it". You would be amazed at how hard it was for the more experienced persons to adjust, because most of what they were taught was not in the book. I see the value in asking "where is written", because you never know what people have accepted as being the one and only true way under the wrongfull belief that said way is written somewhere.
cinepro Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 It seems to have originated with David O McKay. All the prophets before him but 2 (Joseph Smith and John Taylor) had beards.John Taylor had a beard (it's hard to see in the picture because it's a "chin curtain"-type beard).
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Hair today, gone tomorrow. It is within the purview of Temple Presidents, Mission Presidents and Stake Presidents to make decisions regarding such things. It need not be written in the manual. Nor should someone be considered in apostasy if their hair is too long or they have a mustache or beard, as I have had most of my life until I began working in the Temple.I really don't have a problem with the requirement for missionaries, and thus presidents as an extension. Some young guys might get to feeling a bit bad being left out of the beard club if they lack the ability to grow one. As for high priests, temple workers, ga's, I think the whole facial hair thing an irrelevant vestigial remnant of the church's pr from an earlier century, and while it isn't in the handbook today, it is a carry over of the missionary and BYU grooming standards, which themselves are a product of that same anti-beard campaign of earlier yore. The arguments for humility and obedience and so forth just ring hollow to me. If that's what we're after, let's have the all the priesthood walk around with their flies open. Add a "kick me" sign to the back. Or, let's start requiring everyone to wear a bright yellow rubber wrist bracelet thing that says "obedience." The command is to wear it, and we obey by wearing it. After all, being told what to do, however arbitrary the instruction, is presumed to contribute to our ability to be obedient so long as we comply.
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 The point is NOT the facial hair. It's the obedience. If you want a beard and no one has asked you to shave, and you feel no spiritual promptings to shave, then don't shave!Done and done!
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Can someone explain to me where an aversion to beards might have originated?I've heard suggestions that it is related to the view that beards became counter-culture, hippies and so forth, campus protests, etc. youth movements in the 60s and what not. David O. McKay's being clean-shaven and snappily dressed probably played a role. And there's the whole we're-not-bearded-polygamists thing to consider. Etc.
ElfLord Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 John Taylor had a beard (it's hard to see in the picture because it's a "chin curtain"-type beard).Good catch. I wonder how many Apostles in the bible had beards? We know Jesus did and many of the OT prophets too.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Good catch. I wonder how many Apostles in the bible had beards? We know Jesus did and many of the OT prophets too.Isaiah used to preach nekkid....
ElfLord Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Isaiah used to preach nekkid....So did King Saul... and David ran around in his skivies.
ELF1024 Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 So did King Saul... and David ran around in his skivies.Maybe we should keep it simple. You must wear clothes to be a Bishop or Stake President. Or at least have a beard long enough to cover your parts (when standing)?
Rock_N_Roll Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Well thank goodness you were there to set them straight.Actually, I was a missionary (zone leader). I called the Mission President, and he set them strait.
bluebell Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Maybe we should keep it simple. You must wear clothes to be a Bishop or Stake President. Or at least have a beard long enough to cover your parts (when standing)?I actually laughed out loud when i read that.
bluebell Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Actually, I was a missionary (zone leader). I called the Mission President, and he set them strait.I once had a ward mission leader tell us that he was authorizing us to use as many miles on our car as he thought we should. Another member claimed that we should never go into a store if it wasn't p-day, regardless if it was our lunch break or what we might need.You know what they say-every member a mission president!
ElfLord Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Maybe we should keep it simple. You must wear clothes to be a Bishop or Stake President. Or at least have a beard long enough to cover your parts (when standing)?Well... Paul did say...1 Corinthians 11:15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
nicolasconnault Posted January 6, 2011 Posted January 6, 2011 Can someone explain to me where an aversion to beards might have originated?It's a conspiracy by the Relief Society.Usually, when the Church issues a guideline on appearance, its meaning is obvious from the culture at large. For example, long hair (for men) was associated with hippies in the 60's. Tattoos and too many earrings (and any earrings for men) are associated with counter-culture attitudes and rebellion against authority. Modesty stems from obvious attitudes about the importance of covering certain parts of the body, and the ungodly feelings of "lust" that can be stirred by inappropriate clothing.But I've never, ever heard of any negative cultural attitudes towards beards. As long as the beard is well kept, I've never heard of anyone being looked down on, or thought badly of. I've never heard that the skin of a man's face is supposed to be shown to the world and not covered by hair. That's one of the issues I suppose (underlined part). It can be a sign of neglect or bad hygiene. It can also be used by criminals to conceal their identity. However in most cases I don't see a problem with a beard. Just my wife does
Brenda Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Letter VS Spirit. It's not about beards. It's not about fashion. (BTW, David O. McKay often wore a white/light-colored suit. You won't see that today.) It IS all about humility and submissiveness, AKA attitude. You are not being asked to uproot your family and go settle and farm a barren desert wasteland. Nor are you asked to mortgage your farm to pay for the BoM publication. You're not asked to serve a mission for years w/o purse or script. You might be asked, if you are a YM pres, or EQP, or maybe a seminary teacher, etc., to be clean shaven so to set an example to the YM, our future missionaries. Or you might be asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a white shirt & tie to pass the sacrament. Big deal. There is the faint possibility that someone out there in the Church leadership may know something that you don't. Just a thought.
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Letter VS Spirit. It's not about beards. It's not about fashion. (BTW, David O. McKay often wore a white/light-colored suit. You won't see that today.) It IS all about humility and submissiveness, AKA attitude. You are not being asked to uproot your family and go settle and farm a barren desert wasteland. Nor are you asked to mortgage your farm to pay for the BoM publication. You're not asked to serve a mission for years w/o purse or script.Each of your examples were things people had to do for good reason. The beard thing is an arbitrary vestigial expectation from a bygone era. Or you might be asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a white shirt & tie to pass the sacrament. Big deal. There is the faint possibility that someone out there in the Church leadership may know something that you don't. Just a thought.What if we're asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a yellow obedience bracelet?
ElfLord Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 What if we're asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a yellow obedience bracelet?or a CTR ring?
Jeff K. Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Well... Paul did say...1 Corinthians 11:15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.Could be that Paul was heavily influenced by his Roman citizenship?
evanrm Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Now, I'd like to grow my goatee back, but if my leaders want me to shave I won't challenge them on it. But, on the other hand, if there is clear directive from the first presidency on the issue, I would probably point it out to them.I actually think that things like this should be opposed. Not that contention is desirable, and I don't advocate anarchy, but the last thing the church needs is people trying to control others. It creates an atmosphere where people are beholden to rules that don't really exist. The Jews fell foul of that, and look where it landed them.
evanrm Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Letter VS Spirit. It's not about beards. It's not about fashion. (BTW, David O. McKay often wore a white/light-colored suit. You won't see that today.) It IS all about humility and submissiveness, AKA attitude.While I agree with being humble generally, what value is there in being submissive to some random leader's personal rules?You might be asked, if you are a YM pres, or EQP, or maybe a seminary teacher, etc., to be clean shaven so to set an example to the YM, our future missionaries. Or you might be asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a white shirt & tie to pass the sacrament. Big deal. There is the faint possibility that someone out there in the Church leadership may know something that you don't. Just a thought.If the church informed us that beards would send the YM to the depths of hell, then fair enough. Without that, I suspect that facial hair doesn't actually set a bad example. Maybe it's a 'gateway' for drugs and illicit sex? As for wearing a white shirt to pass the sacrament, the policy definitively sets out that such is NOT a requirement, although should be encouraged.
Brenda Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Each of your examples were things people had to do for good reason. The beard thing is an arbitrary vestigial expectation from a bygone era. "I know not, save the Lord commanded it." Moses 5:5"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." D&C 1:38What if we're asked, out of respect and reverence, to wear a yellow obedience bracelet?While I agree with being humble generally, what value is there in being submissive to some random leader's personal rules?If the church informed us that beards would send the YM to the depths of hell, then fair enough. Without that, I suspect that facial hair doesn't actually set a bad example. Maybe it's a 'gateway' for drugs and illicit sex? As for wearing a white shirt to pass the sacrament, the policy definitively sets out that such is NOT a requirement, although should be encouraged.Think about it. The YM are our soon-to-be missionaries when they must be clean-shaven, dressed in conservative suits, white shirts and ties. Not an easy transition for some of them. What is the reason for the missionary dress and grooming standards? They are representatives of the Lord's church. At the same time, aren't we all? It's all about setting an example. Walking the walk. The white shirt policy is encouraged, as you said. Isn't that enough for you? It's so little to ask.Ask yourself this: If Pres. Monson walked into your Sac. Mtg, would you feel the least bit self-conscious about your appearance? If not, then no worries!
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I once had a ward mission leader tell us that he was authorizing us to use as many miles on our car as he thought we should. Another member claimed that we should never go into a store if it wasn't p-day, regardless if it was our lunch break or what we might need.How blessed you must have been, Bluebell, to have had so many beautiful opportunities to learn both humility and obedience.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 I actually think that things like this should be opposed. Not that contention is desirable, and I don't advocate anarchy, but the last thing the church needs is people trying to control others. It creates an atmosphere where people are beholden to rules that don't really exist. The Jews fell foul of that, and look where it landed them.Bingo!
nicolasconnault Posted January 7, 2011 Posted January 7, 2011 Everyone here seems to think that facial hair is a dichotomy between clean shaven and beautifully kept beard. In case you're not aware (which I doubt), there's a gulf of ugliness, prickles and unkempt looks in between! I don't think that the "rule" of staying cleanly shaved is a "random" whim by some control freaks in leadership positions, but that it has the merit of keeping male members looking clean. At least that's one of the merits. The disadvantages, apart from feeling controlled, are... not being able to hide a cleft palate perhaps, or not being able to hide some other scar or tattoo??
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.