Eternal Significance Of Grooming Choices

[Cobalt-70]

I came across an old LDS children's hymn from 1884 (http://www.archive.o...age/84/mode/2up) about the immodesty of "banging your hair"--i.e., wearing bangs. The hymn, called Bessie Fair, praises the modesty of a girl who does not wear bangs, and she would "neither paint nor powder, nor friz her flowing hair."

Apparently, from what I gather from publications of that era, this was a hot fashion trend that suddenly appeared in 1876, first in the large cities like New York and Chicago, and then making its way to the Utah Territory. Among the more conservative Americans, it was considered an immodest and ugly development (See http://books.google....AAAIAAJ&pg=PA13 (1883) "Ugliness of face is intensified a thousand-fold by the 'ring-worm style' of head-dress with which they cover their foreheads and half their cheeks." http://books.google....AAIAAJ&pg=PA252 (1883): "Bangs on a girl give her an unruly look, like a cow with a board over her face. You take the gentlest cow in the world and put a board over her face, and turn her out in a pasture and she gets the reputation of being unruly....A girl with bangs may try to be good and true, but it's awful hard work....The bang girl may belong to church, and may try to put on a pious look while the hymn is being read, but she will look out from behind these bangs sidewise at some meek and lowly young Christian...." A 1882 college journal (http://books.google....AAAIAAJ&pg=PA97) spun gossip by noting that the president of Wellesley College "is a Doctor of Philosophy and bangs her hair.").

Today, of course, no Mormon woman would ever connect the wearing of bangs with modesty or LDS standards. The link between bangs and immodesty or lack of virtue was a passing link, with no lingering significance within Mormons standards of modesty. So my questions are as follows:

1. If a girl in 1884 chose to get a haircut with bangs, would that have been considered a sin, and should she justifiably have felt guilty and unworthy because of her grooming choice?
   
2. If not, then what is the difference between this and multiple ear piercings today, or any other element of what the church considers to be "modesty," such as tattoos or body piercings? What if, 120 years from now, people of the future look at the Mormon "counsel" against multiple piercings the way we look at the 1880 "counsel" against wearing bangs?
   
3. If either of the cases might be a sin at one time but not in another, then does that mean that standards of modesty are relative? Is this a form of moral relativism?
   
4. What eternal consequences, if any, does Mormonism attach to the choice to wear bangs in 1884, or the choice to have multiple ear piercings or tattoos in 2011? Is this just an optional suggestion, like the original Word of Wisdom, or is it actually a sin that might keep one from entering the Celestial Kingdom unless repented of?
   

Edited December 19, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[cinepro]

Elder Bednar has answered your question:

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. This young man cared for the young woman very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. Now 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.

Now before I continue, I presume that some of you might have difficulty with my last example. In fact, this particular illustration of the young man being quick to observe may even fan the flames of controversy on campus, resulting in letters of disagreement to the Daily Universe! You may believe the young man was too judgmental or that basing an eternally important decision, even in part, upon such a supposedly minor issue is silly or fanatical. Perhaps you are bothered because the example focuses upon a young woman who failed to respond to prophetic counsel instead of upon a young man. I simply invite you to consider and ponder the power of being quick to observe and what was actually observed in the case I just described. The issue was not earrings!

Quick to Observe

The issue isn't bangs, or spaghetti straps, or waxed upper lips. It's obedience.

If that's not good enough for you, then

. Edited December 19, 2011 by cinepro

[Sky]

Were young women in the 1880’s specifically counseled by the leaders of the Church to not have bangs? Was the author of this children’s hymn a church leader or a prominent person in the community? If the answer to both questions is no, then I don’t really think this is comparable to today’s counsel to not have tattoos and body piercings – which seems like perfectly sound counsel to me.

[Monster]

Elder Bednar has answered your question:

The issue isn't bangs, or spaghetti straps, or waxed upper lips. It's obedience.

If that's not good enough for you, then

.

You are correct the issue is obedience. Which makes the whole Bednar story even more creepy. To require obedience to trivial things is well creepy and manipulative. The girl was better off without the dude. Imagine the kind of influence he would want to exert over her to get her to conform to this or that. Creepy I say.

As far as modesty standards changing over time I think that is a given. Many young women coming to church today would be sent home in 1890 for immodest dress. It is not so much an issue to enforce modesty standards for the day but it is another issue to enforce modesty standards from a century ago.

[katherine the great]

Elder Bednar assumes too much. I think it is equally as likely that the girl watching and waiting for signs that the young man was of a "tolerant" nature. Elder Bednar's slightly negative spin on the girl's character just reflects his (obviously) obedience oriented nature. The couple were mismatched from the start and it's probably a good thing for both of them that it didn't work out.

[Cobalt-70]

The issue isn't bangs, or spaghetti straps, or waxed upper lips. It's obedience.

Waxed upper lips? Is that immodest now? Or is it immodest for women to grow out their mustaches? I never heard either way. Maybe I'm out of the loop.

As to it being "about obedience," that is not a direct answer to the question. I am more concerned about whether there are eternal consequences. Keep in mind that as far as I know, the church never issued a true commandment, or canonized anything, that limits women to one earring, or prevents them from getting tattoos. "Obedience" requires that there is a command that must be obeyed. As far as I know, there is no such commandment, only "counsel." In hymns and in speeches by Apostles such as Elder Bednar, failure to follow such advice is cast as a moral failing. However, does failure to agree with this "counsel" constitute a sin? If it does constitute a sin, does that mean that following the "commandments" is no longer enough, and that Mormons must also follow all suggestions or innuendos by priesthood leaders?

[Cobalt-70]

Were young women in the 1880’s specifically counseled by the leaders of the Church to not have bangs? Was the author of this children’s hymn a church leader or a prominent person in the community? If the answer to both questions is no, then I don’t really think this is comparable to today’s counsel to not have tattoos and body piercings – which seems like perfectly sound counsel to me.

If it's in a church publication, like the hymn was, and was sung at church meetings, then it seems like you'd have to consider it to have been "counseled" by church leaders. I would say it had the same status as any statement made today in a church manual. I'm pretty sure that the "counsel" against bangs seemed as sound in the 1880s as the "counsel" against extra earrings does to us today. The question is, will we think the same way 120 years from now, when people are walking around with surgically-implanted horns, genetically modified hair, and middle-breasts?

[Stargazer]

Elder Bednar assumes too much. I think it is equally as likely that the girl watching and waiting for signs that the young man was of a "tolerant" nature. Elder Bednar's slightly negative spin on the girl's character just reflects his (obviously) obedience oriented nature. The couple were mismatched from the start and it's probably a good thing for both of them that it didn't work out.

Yes, you're certainly correct that they probably weren't a good match from the start.

That being said, the young man wanted a wife who was obedient to counsel, and I think if that was the case he chose a decent measuring stick for his preference. It doesn't mean that the young woman in question is somehow "bad", but it seems clear that she doesn't consider that public counsel given to women in the church to apply to her in this instance. It is any different from a young woman who wants a faithful priesthood holder to be determined to select her husband from only among those who served an honorable mission? Does this say that a young man who did not serve a mission is somehow "bad"? Nope, she just decided upon what she felt was a good measuring stick for her preference. I imagine that some might have a cow if a GA were to counsel faithful young women to select their husbands from among faithful RMs, or from among those who would have done so had they had the opportunity.

I am sorry, but your speculation that the girl was looking for someone who was tolerant sounds contrived. It seems more likely to me that she had a rebellious streak -- not going to let those stodgy old men tell her what she may or may not wear.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Stargazer

[Storm Rider]

I have never felt comfortable with these types of rules. To me the gospel of Christ is focused on teaching his disciples to follow the Spirit in all they do. It is not about creating 1,000 rules that direct all social behavior to ensure righteousness. Every time we create these types of rules we take one step away from Jesus Christ.

Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Never go beyond that principle and all will be well.

[CV75]

The link between bangs and immodesty or lack of virtue was a passing link, with no lingering significance within Mormons standards of modesty.

Our evaluation of and response to counsel is a decision point and so has eternal significance because it serves as the link between our current relationship with God and what it could be and what it could become.

Being one with the Lord and His servants will result in a different evaluation and response to counsel than being indifferent or at odds with them. The link between our current and future relationship with God is constantly at play, so every decision is significant, both in the wherewithal we posses for making it, and in the wherewithal we will possess after making it.

The link serves both as a barometer and facilitator or activator in our developing relationship with God. The qualities that build the relationship with God are nicely listed in Mosiah 3:19 and Alma 13:28.

With this in mind, my response to your 4 questions are:

1. Yes.

2. Counsel can change according to the times and bounds of habitations (Acts 17:26).

3. Some standards of modesty are dependent upon the times and bounds of habitations (e.g. hair style) and some are eternal (i.e. chastity).

4. It is a sin to persist in being a natural man when the better option is available.

[Sky]

I think that when we sidestep the counsel we receive from an apostle or put limits around what we are willing to accept, we fall on sandy ground. We are not asked to cross the plains as our pioneer ancestors were, yet when our leaders today counsel us to wear modest clothes and not get tattoos and body piercings, they are sometimes seen as being annoying or overstepping their bounds. Bangs don’t fall under the same category as tattoos and body piercings, regardless of what was said in 1884.

It all comes down to treating our bodies with respect and not defiling them, as it says in 1^st Corinthians 3: 16-17:

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.

But hey, I’m just an unquestioning TBM, so what do I know?

[Saints Alive]

Bangs don’t fall under the same category as tattoos and body piercings, regardless of what was said in 1884...

But hey, I’m just an unquestioning TBM, so what do I know?

Perhaps bangs aren't quite as permenant as tattoos or piercings but apperantly it is important what kind of curtians you hang in your temple

[ERMD]

To obey is better than to sacrifice; and hearken than the fat of rams.

[Cobalt-70]

I am sorry, but your speculation that the girl was looking for someone who was tolerant sounds contrived. It seems more likely to me that she had a rebellious streak -- not going to let those stodgy old men tell her what she may or may not wear.

But don't you think it's a little strange that the indicator of a woman's suitability as a mate is linked to her "obedience" in matters of outward appearance, whereas the suitability of a man is linked to his "obedience" in more intangible matters like going in a mission? Also, why is it that all these grooming-related indicia of worthiness are primarily directed at women rather than men? Maybe there is a feminist criticism here: is this just another example of the fact that femininity is written on the body, whereas masculinity is written on the spirit?

[Garden Girl]

I have never felt comfortable with these types of rules. To me the gospel of Christ is focused on teaching his disciples to follow the Spirit in all they do. It is not about creating 1,000 rules that direct all social behavior to ensure righteousness. Every time we create these types of rules we take one step away from Jesus Christ.

Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. Never go beyond that principle and all will be well.

Hello Storm Rider...

Whenever I see Pres Hinckley mocked for his counsel... counsel not commandment... on tatoos and body piercings, I always think about another prophet -- Isaiah -- and his warnings to the Daughters of Zion (Isaiah 3:16-26):

"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts.

In that day, the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,

The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,

The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,

The rings, and nose jewels,

The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,

The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

And it shall come to pass that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle, a rent; and instead of well set hair, baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty....

Gosh, one pair of earrings and no tatoos or piercings doesn't seem too extreme... I think we all know that both Isaiah and Pres Hinckley are counseling more about attitude (haughtiness or humbleness not only outwardly but our inner self, i.e., the Lord will know our "secret parts" or our hearts and minds) and being modest in dress and appearance as counseled tells much about each of us and what is in our hearts and minds... I don't think Pres Hinckley... or Isaiah for that matter... are counseling against these things just to hear themselves talk. While it may not keep someone from the CK, it certainly denotes the spirit with which we accept or not accept such counsel from our prophet.

from the beach on a cold, crisp winter day... brrr... GG

Edited December 20, 2011 by Garden Girl

[Cobalt-70]

It all comes down to treating our bodies with respect and not defiling them, as it says in 1^st Corinthians 3: 16-17:

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.

Yet, why is a single earring not "defiling" a woman's body, but two earrings are? Why is circumcision not a defilement of the male body? What about plastic surgery, which seems like a far greater "defilement" than having an extra earring or a discrete tattoo, yet I haven't heard any of "the brethren" counsel the women of the church not to get breast augmentation, or suggest that a man should break up with an "augmented" woman because she has "defiled" her temple. Why is painting your lips purple not a "defilement", while coloring your hair purple is? Anthropologists tell us, after all, that the purpose of women's facial makeup is to mimic the flush of sexual excitement. Why is such sexual mimicry better than having an extra earring or getting a tattoo of a rose or a CTR emblem?

These inconsistencies show that this is probably not really about some absolute idea of "defilement" of the body. Perhaps it is just simple secular cultural conservatism, which has invaded religious thought.

[Garden Girl]

Hello Cobalt...

Hope this finds you well and looking forward to the holidays...

Storm Rider quoted about teaching correct principles and letting the people govern themselves... I think this is an answer to your questions... we have been counseled for many years about modesty in dress and actions... so, when in our day tatoos and piercings came into vogue we were counseled about those. Again, it's attitude and applies to any number of immodest trappings, i.e., purple lips, various hair styles, various implants, etc etc. We govern ourselves... every single thing does not have to be enumerated.

It is like the WoW... there was a principle set forth, and as certain things come on the market today we use that principle as a measure, i.e., and avoid things today that were not available when the WoW was instituted... such as energy drinks (stimulants), etc.

We follow the principle of modesty and moderation... we apply correct principles accordingly no matter what fad or practice comes down the pike...

GG

[bluebell]

But don't you think it's a little strange that the indicator of a woman's suitability as a mate is linked to her "obedience" in matters of outward appearance, whereas the suitability of a man is linked to his "obedience" in more intangible matters like going in a mission? Also, why is it that all these grooming-related indicia of worthiness are primarily directed at women rather than men? Maybe there is a feminist criticism here: is this just another example of the fact that femininity is written on the body, whereas masculinity is written on the spirit?

The woman's suitability as a mate by the one who was dating her was linked to her obedience to the counsel of a prophet. That the counsel was about earrings seems to be irrelevant to the obedience part.

I think you are probably right though that in our culture, feminitiy is heavily judged by the world on a woman's outward appearance.

[katherine the great]

I am sorry, but your speculation that the girl was looking for someone who was tolerant sounds contrived. It seems more likely to me that she had a rebellious streak -- not going to let those stodgy old men tell her what she may or may not wear.

Of course it's contrived. I have absolutely no evidence to support it. There is also no evidence to support Elder Bednar's story other than what the young man told him from a very specific point of view. In all fairness, I'm looking at the situation from the woman's perspective because contrary to conventional male wisdom, women are not necessarily just waiting around for men to make all the moves in a relationship. For all we know, she could have decided that she no longer wanted to date the young man either. They were not a good match.

[Sky]

Yet, why is a single earring not "defiling" a woman's body, but two earrings are? Why is circumcision not a defilement of the male body? What about plastic surgery, which seems like a far greater "defilement" than having an extra earring or a discrete tattoo, yet I haven't heard any of "the brethren" counsel the women of the church not to get breast augmentation, or suggest that a man should break up with an "augmented" woman because she has "defiled" her temple. Why is painting your lips purple not a "defilement", while coloring your hair purple is? Anthropologists tell us, after all, that the purpose of women's facial makeup is to mimic the flush of sexual excitement. Why is such sexual mimicry better than having an extra earring or getting a tattoo of a rose or a CTR emblem?

These inconsistencies show that this is probably not really about some absolute idea of "defilement" of the body. Perhaps it is just simple secular cultural conservatism, which has invaded religious thought.

I think you are making this a much bigger and more complicated issue than it really is. Dressing in modest clothing and not getting tattoos and body piercings is perfectly reasonable, and it applies to both women and men. I’m sticking with the Brethren on this. The other scenarios and “inconsistencies” that you brought up apparently aren’t huge concerns for the Brethren, but of course we are always encouraged to approach the Lord in prayer and receive our own answers. If it feels right, go with it. If it feels wrong, go with it.

[Cobalt-70]

The woman's suitability as a mate by the one who was dating her was linked to her obedience to the counsel of a prophet. That the counsel was about earrings seems to be irrelevant to the obedience part.

My point was that Mormon women are expected to wear their obedience on their bodies, whereas Mormon men are expected to carry their obedience internally. This represents the body/spirit duality that so many feminists have written about.

[Cobalt-70]

I think you are making this a much bigger and more complicated issue than it really is. Dressing in modest clothing and not getting tattoos and body piercings is perfectly reasonable, and it applies to both women and men. I’m sticking with the Brethren on this. The other scenarios and “inconsistencies” that you brought up apparently aren’t huge concerns for the Brethren, but of course we are always encouraged to approach the Lord in prayer and receive our own answers. If it feels right, go with it. If it feels wrong, go with it.

You are using two contradictory paradigms: On the one hand, you are saying "stick with the Brethren," meaning that God's will as to your grooming choices will be mediated through a committee of conservative men. On the other hand, you are saying, "if it feels right, go with it," meaning that God is to be your personal, unmediated grooming coordinator.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

We follow the principle of modesty and moderation... we apply correct principles accordingly no matter what fad or practice comes down the pike...

But "modesty and moderation" are not underlying principles, unmoved by fads. It is the fads themselves that define what is "immodest" today (two earrings instead of one) and what is "immodest" yesterday (bangs). The idea of modesty itself is apparently an illusory "underlying principle" that shifts with the fads and philosophies of men.

[katherine the great]

Anthropologists tell us, after all, that the purpose of women's facial makeup is to mimic the flush of sexual excitement. Why is such sexual mimicry better than having an extra earring or getting a tattoo of a rose or a CTR emblem?

I just noticed this comment. I remember my science teacher saying this in the 70's. Modern Anthropologists are more likely to say that it is to look youthful and desirable.

[Garden Girl]

But "modesty and moderation" are not underlying principles, unmoved by fads. It is the fads themselves that define what is "immodest" today (two earrings instead of one) and what is "immodest" yesterday (bangs). The idea of modesty itself is apparently an illusory "underlying principle" that shifts with the fads and philosophies of men.

They aren't?? I think I see what you are saying, but don't agree from my persepective... i.e., we LDS women dress "modestly" in the sense that the principle, or our standard, for skirts for instance are at the knee. Who cares that mini skirts came into fad. Our definition of modesty is skirts to the knees. The "mini" lasted several years and then went on to "maxi" IIRC... our standard remained skirts to the knees unless we chose to wear a maxi which was okay by our standards or principles of modesty.

As for earrings, our standard was a modest pair in good taste vs more elaborate (feathers, too long and dangly) etc. Who cares that multi-piercings for additional earrings going up the ears came into fad, our standard was modest and in good taste.

Our standard for hair is well groomed, and neat, whether short or a pony tail, bangs or no bangs... who cares if spiked purple hair comes into fad. Our standard was and still is neat and well groomed...

Our standard for dresses is covered chest and shoulders... who cares if spaghetti straps come into fad. We choose to honor the standard or principle for modesty of no bare chests or shoulders.

Actually, in some ways we're saying similar things, just from different angles. Mine is that we have an established standard, and it matters not what the fad is that comes and goes, we choose to honor our standards (at least those who do so)... everyone has the right to choose. The principle or standard is there... whatever fads come or go, our standard is there.

GG

GG

Edited December 21, 2011 by Garden Girl