Beards

[canard78]

I will just note that my daughter who is attending EFY at the moment does have specific dress and grooming requirements to attend a church sponsored activity. Which includes specifications for hair, both style and colour. Also the number of earings which i found very wierd. It also includes the requirement for men to wear white shirts as church attire and includes restrictions on facial hair.

Add to this the statements made by some about the dress and grooming for missionaries and church employees and also add the comments about church leaders specifically stating that some dress and grooming standards dot not apply in some instances and I think there has to be some acceptance that some people will enforce traditional/cultural standards because of the prevailance of standards in many areas of the church.

Antecdotely, I have been restricted from blessing the sacrament because I did not have a white shirt a few times. Once a bishop in other ward would not give my brother a temple recommend for the same reason. He was quickly released (not because of my brother!). This happened in Australia far away from the conservative culture of Utah. So I thing things like this prevail throughout the church. Right or wrong.

Paddy

EFY standards seem to match those of BYU. A male BYU student can't have earings. A female can only have one.

I agree it's frustrating that there's a tendency towards culturally driven approaches to aspects of church practice.

Having said that, the sister missionaries never looked like this when I was young (where's the skirt and suit jacket?) so maybe there's a trend towards other change and more modern 'looks'.

(Anyone know why there's no dress & grooming page for Elders?)

[Hamba Tuhan]

I will just note that my daughter who is attending EFY at the moment does have specific dress and grooming requirements to attend a church sponsored activity. Which includes specifications for hair, both style and colour. Also the number of earings which i found very wierd. It also includes the requirement for men to wear white shirts as church attire and includes restrictions on facial hair.

None of which is surprising since EFY, rather than being sponsored by the Church, is owned and run by BYU (links here and here), imposing the same 'honour code' which they impose on their students.

Antecdotely, I have been restricted from blessing the sacrament because I did not have a white shirt a few times.

Which means that a bishop was in direct violation of very clear Church policy: 'Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance [the sacrament]. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate'.

Once a bishop in other ward would not give my brother a temple recommend for the same reason. He was quickly released (not because of my brother!).

I served as a stake exec sec a while back, and we had a bishop who did the same thing. When he was corrected in bishopric training meeting, he defiantly defended his behaviour. He was released as soon as the stake presidency obtained the necessary approval.

This happened in Australia far away from the conservative culture of Utah. So I thing things like this prevail throughout the church.

I've lived in both Utah and Australia in addition to a number of other places, and I've never seen a more 'conservative' -- I'd go so far as to call it stiflingly uptight and rigid -- culture than Australia's, where it has indeed crept into local Church culture. Trust me: I've never seen anything in Utah comparable to Australia.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

None of which is surprising since EFY, rather than being sponsored by the Church, is owned and run by BYU (links here and here), imposing the same 'honour code' which they impose on their students.

Which means that a bishop was in direct violation of very clear Church policy: 'Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance [the sacrament]. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate'

I served as a stake exec sec a while back, and we had a bishop who did the same thing. When he was corrected in bishopric training meeting, he defiantly defended his behaviour. He was released as soon as the stake presidency obtained the necessary approval.

I've lived in both Utah and Australia in addition to a number of other places, and I've never seen a more 'conservative' -- I'd go so far as to call it stiflingly uptight and rigid -- culture than Australia's, where it has indeed crept into local Church culture. Trust me: I've never seen anything in Utah comparable to Australia.

This is an excellent reply. Thanks for the research and information. If it's a BYU program it's not really surprising that they apply the same dress-standards.

[Calm]

Having said that, the sister missionaries never looked like this when I was young (where's the skirt and suit jacket?) so maybe there's a trend towards other change and more modern 'looks'.

Looks like a smile is an official part of the 'uniform'.

[Calm]

(Anyone know why there's no dress & grooming page for Elders?)

Just guessing, but there is a huge variety allowed for the women and shopping for the mission needs probably works much, much better to be done before getting out there while guys have less variety and pretty straightforward choices and shopping for white shirts and ties isn't going to be that strenuous if they are needed, even suits aren't as difficult as finding modest attire for women these days in many places. Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

According to the latest information, in the next revision of the adult curriculum beards are to be made the norm, with a choice of the following beard styles being optional:

http://www.google.co...iw=1280&bih=899

[thesometimesaint]

Really? Something so mundane as beards, etc would cause you to turn away from the gospel and the beautiful doctrines of the Plan of Salvation? Because of some cultural thing not based on any written policy, or doctrine for that matter?? Hmmmm...

Now TSS... you speak like colored shirts are not allowed... hopefully you're being facetious... my Gospel Doctrine teacher never wears white shirts. He has beautiful colors... blues, burgundy, greens, golds, with coordinated ties.

Hope this finds you well and looking forward to the New Year. All good wishes...

GG

It was a bit tongue in cheek. The only time I wear a white shirt is in the Temple. Apart from my shirt color, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between me and a lot of Bishops.

With the passing of each year I hope to be a little wiser, a little more forgiving, not only of others, but of myself. I am often my own worst critic, and if nothing else I can claim to have fooled them another year, just by being alive.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Heaven forbid facial hair on men. Next we'll be allowing colored shirts in Sacrament Meetings.

I have only one white shirt...I love colors. I always wore white while serving in the Bishopric as HPGL and Ward Mission leader, but Bill Mormon, seldom. I will have to ware it soon as I now have a new Grandson (named after me, as of yesterday) so while standing in the circle, I will dress as others think I should...then back to green and blue and yellow.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

Heretic.

[Calm]

I have only one white shirt...I love colors. I always wore white while serving in the Bishopric as HPGL and Ward Mission leader, but Bill Mormon, seldom. I will have to ware it soon as I now have a new Grandson (named after me, as of yesterday) so while standing in the circle, I will dress as others think I should...then back to green and blue and yellow.

Congratulations...

I would love to see a circle that was made of rainbow colours all in order...black suits with richly coloured shirts with black ties, it would just be too fun but would probably be taken as some sort of statement when all it would be is decorative fun.

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[ttribe]

Context - I have an LDS co-worker currently serving as Ward Clerk. He recently (as in the past month) grew a goatee.

Situation - A couple of weeks ago, the High Council member assigned to his ward, pulled him aside, pointed out that neither the General Authorities, nor the local Stake Leadership, had any facial hair. He then, not so lovingly, suggested my co-worker get himself in line with the non-facial hair program and show a "better example" to his ward members (yes, he used those words). The cultural pressure persists.

[pogi]

If I were a woman who wears skirts to church all winter long without the benefit of fleece-lined tights, I might have a thing or two to say about such an attitude...

I can assure you that such an invention exists (fleece lined tights). It's the only way my wife will go to church in the winter, of course she is not afraid to wear pants either, but she wears thermals under her pants too.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The cultural pressure persists.

No doubt. And almost certainly it will persist in pockets for some time regardless of what may or may not show up in handbooks or in Church-produced ads. But it's important to acknowledge that it's not a universal phenomenon, nor does it arise directly from actual institutional policy.

[Paddy]

nor does it arise directly from actual institutional policy.

But has not this thread demonstrated that there are institutional policies, and sometimes rather strict ones, in relation to dress and grooming in the church? Missionaries, temple workers, church run educational facilities, youth programs, persons participating in priesthood ordinances, all have some policy attached to it, notwithstanding some cultural expectations.

To suggest there is not a precedent for dress and grooming standards that arises from institutional policy is, in my opinion not entirely correct. But I do understand what you are saying.

Paddy

[sunstoned]

Context - I have an LDS co-worker currently serving as Ward Clerk. He recently (as in the past month) grew a goatee.

Situation - A couple of weeks ago, the High Council member assigned to his ward, pulled him aside, pointed out that neither the General Authorities, nor the local Stake Leadership, had any facial hair. He then, not so lovingly, suggested my co-worker get himself in line with the non-facial hair program and show a "better example" to his ward members (yes, he used those words). The cultural pressure persists.

This is one Stake leader who is totally out of line.

[blackstrap]

Context - I have an LDS co-worker currently serving as Ward Clerk. He recently (as in the past month) grew a goatee.

Situation - A couple of weeks ago, the High Council member assigned to his ward, pulled him aside, pointed out that neither the General Authorities, nor the local Stake Leadership, had any facial hair. He then, not so lovingly, suggested my co-worker get himself in line with the non-facial hair program and show a "better example" to his ward members (yes, he used those words). The cultural pressure persists.

I might be tempted to ask how the steel rod felt !

[mfbukowski]

The UK has the left-over influence of the 60s bearded culture in a lot of our stake presidency/high council age members. It's a misperception of church standards. But still becomes a question of whether to follow a priesthood leader or not. As a fellow Brit, I've heard it lots and lots of times from people who are in their 60s or older that priesthood leaders should not have a beard. Sometimes it's asked "as a favour" to the leader. Sometimes it's a positioned as a matter of obedience and sustaining your leader.

Give it another generation or two and it will probably be gone.

I agree that it is more common for those of us who survived the 60's to feel that beards are signs of rebellion because when we were young, they were. I recall reading somewhere that leaders should have a "conservative" look and my understanding was that is why G.A. Smith and others of his era wore a beard- because in fact in HIS era, beards were seen as "old-fashioned" and therefore "conservative". I don't know- that was just my understanding. After all prophets had all had beards before President McKay, and even today if you ask non-members on the street what a "prophet" should look like I bet the description will include a beard and a long robe!

In the 1950's virtually no one wore a beard, and "long-hair" music was classical music.

After I joined the church in the 70's my stake president's policy was that if you had a calling which caused you to attend Priesthood Executive Committee Meeting, or "higher" you could not have facial hair. That really bummed me out because I had had facial hair from the first time I was old enough to grow some, various beards, moustaches and pony tails (not on my face!) etc.

So I shaved it all off for obedience, and it was good for me I think.

Now I am a temple worker so I still can't grow it back even though it would make me look even older than I am. I really don't miss it and I think for business purposes it would be a surprise to my clients anyway and would just be a distraction.

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

But still becomes a question of whether to follow a priesthood leader or not ... Sometimes it's asked "as a favour" to the leader. Sometimes it's a positioned as a matter of obedience and sustaining your leader.

This approach confuses me. I'm trying to imagine how I might respond if a priesthood leader asked me to give up, say, eating meat or drinking hot chocolate* as a 'favour' to him or as a test of obedience.

*I know Church members who personally choose not to eat meat or drink hot chocolate, so these are theoretical possibilities.

[sdc999]

Context - I have an LDS co-worker currently serving as Ward Clerk. He recently (as in the past month) grew a goatee.

Situation - A couple of weeks ago, the High Council member assigned to his ward, pulled him aside, pointed out that neither the General Authorities, nor the local Stake Leadership, had any facial hair. He then, not so lovingly, suggested my co-worker get himself in line with the non-facial hair program and show a "better example" to his ward members (yes, he used those words). The cultural pressure persists.

I agree with sunstoned, totally out of line, but, to go one step more, how did your friend respond?

[mfbukowski]

I think more guys need to wear skirts. So much more comfy.

Just as long as they sit properly.

[mfbukowski]

A beard like that requires at least shoulder length hair. I mean why do it half way?

[Calm]

A beard like that requires at least shoulder length hair. I mean why do it half way?

Maybe he has a sensitive scalp and doesn't want to have to wear his hair pulled back (that is why my hair is always short, short, short).

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just as long as they sit properly.

When they've mastered that, they can come and have an 'instructional chat' with about half the sisters in my ward ...

[canard78]

This approach confuses me. I'm trying to imagine how I might respond if a priesthood leader asked me to give up, say, eating meat or drinking hot chocolate* as a 'favour' to him or as a test of obedience.

*I know Church members who personally choose not to eat meat or drink hot chocolate, so these are theoretical possibilities.

It's a good example. I agree with you that they are going beyond their remit. Maybe it's better to respectfully say "no, that's beyond your remit" - I would probably quote some of the bits from my original reply to the thread if it came up these days.