The Maxwell Institute and the Honor Code

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but i don't know if I really agree with it.

Strapless dresses used to be a common sight at BYU dances, for example, but now they are considered immodest by the church.  It's reasonable to ask "why?". 

Because the standard has to be set somewhere.  Why is the speed limit in my neighborhood 25 MPH and not 30?  Why not 26.4?  

I think the more fundamental question is "Should we have a speed limit at all?"  If the answer to that is "Yes," then the next question is "Is the speed limit reasonable, even if it necessarily has some level of arbitrariness in it?"  If the answer to that question is "Yes," then the next question could be "Can I voice my perspective about modifying the speed limit?"  The answer to that question is "Sure, but ultimately the speed limit is a matter for the legislature to decide."

So it is, I think, with the Church's modesty standards. 

Should the Church have any modesty standards at all?  I think the answer is plainly "Yes."  

Are the Church's modesty standards reasonable, even if there is some level of arbitrariness to them?"  Again, I think "Yes."

Quote

Why were shoulders once o.k. and now showing shoulders makes a girl immodest?  

I don't know.  Perhaps it's not a matter of "modest' v. immodest," and instead is a matter of "more modest v. less modest."

Quote

While I am fine with accepting the church's standards, I can't see how they are backed up by anything other than the opinions of our leaders at a given time.  

They're backed up by the general concept of modesty, surely?

Quote

Leaders in early decades did not view showing shoulders as immodest so they weren't.  Now leaders believe showing shoulders is immodest so they are.  It feels like there should be more to it than that but I can't find any evidence that there is.

Again, "more modest v. less modest" seems to be in play.

And perhaps there is more attention being paid to consistency here.  People who have been to the temple are asked to be modest in their dress, and the wearing of the garment facilitates that.  Perhaps teaching more-modest-than-average standards to teens is a good way to help them appreciate and prepare for the temple.

Quote

Yes, I think you are right.  I think that the BYU standards have because a standard unto themselves.  They have a life of their own that is separate from any reason for their actual existence.  

No, that's not what I mean.  BYU standards were previously "reactionary" to some extent.  They were a reaction to the hippie stuff going on in the 60s ad early 70s.

Now, however, they have come into their own.  The BYU standards aren't reactionary anymore.  They exist in their own right.  They are a statement in their own right.  

Consider, by way of analogy, the dress and grooming standards of the U.S. Army.  Here's an image of them in uniform during the Civil War:

And here:

Plenty of long hair, beards, sideburns, etc.  

Would any of that pass muster in today's Army?  Nope.  See here:

Quote

General Grooming Standards

The Army is a uniformed service where discipline is judged, in part, by the manner in which a soldier wears a prescribed uniform, as well as by the individual’s personal appearance. Therefore, a neat and well-groomed appearance by all soldiers is fundamental to the Army and contributes to building the pride and esprit essential to an effective military force. A vital ingredient of the Army’s strength and military effectiveness is the pride and self-discipline that American soldiers bring to their service through a conservative military image.

It is the responsibility of commanders to ensure that military personnel under their command present a neat and soldierly appearance. Therefore, in the absence of specific procedures or guidelines, commanders must determine a soldier’s compliance with standards in this regulation. Soldiers must take pride in their appearance at all times, in or out of uniform, on and off duty.

The requirement for hair grooming standards is necessary to maintain uniformity within a military population. Many hairstyles are acceptable, as long as they are neat and conservative. It is not possible to address every acceptable hairstyle, or what constitutes eccentric or conservative grooming. Therefore, it is the responsibility of leaders at all levels to exercise good judgment in the enforcement of Army policy. All soldiers will comply with the hair, fingernail, and grooming policies while in any military uniform or while in civilian clothes on duty.

The dress and grooming standards of a given community can matter.  A lot.  BYU's standards have an obvious and predominant purpose (even if they do, in the end, include some measure of arbitrariness).

Quote

It reminds me of how easily culture becomes tradition and then tradition becomes doctrine in religious circles.  

I think the general concept of dress and grooming is important.  Consider the washings and special clothing worn when attending the temple.  The expressive symbolism of how we dress and groom ourselves matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 14, 2018 by smac97

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

2)  If beards were prohibited because of conditions and attitudes in society (the 1960s mostly) then why aren't they allowed now?  Those conditions and attitudes towards beards don't exist anymore and haven't existed for decades.

Beards are allowed now.  I have a son who is an active member of the Church, and with a temple recommend, who has worn a beard for years.  A very nice well groomed beard, I will say.

If he were offered a calling in a higher leadership position he would likely be asked to shave his beard off, though.  I think because higher leadership positions involve setting some type of group leadership example and since there may some in the group who may not approve of men wearing a beard there would likely be less conflict in the group i9f the leader of the group wasn't wearing a beard.  Or at least I think that is the reasoning behind the ban for men in higher leadership positions.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree with your generalized sentiment that "modesty" is a somewhat elastic concept.  But that elasticity is not limitless.  So we need to set standards and boundaries that will necessarily have some arbitrariness about them, but which we nevertheless should accept.

Consider, by way of analogy, the speed limit in a residential neighborhood.  It's usually 25 MPH, right?  That's the standard, even though it's a bit arbitrary.  It's not that there is something immoral or necessarily unsafe with driving at 30 MPH, and there's nothing necessarily sacrosanct about 25 MPH.  But we set a standard that is intended to facilitate safety, and also that is easily understood and adopted.  I think the same can be said for the Church's teachings about modesty.  

I'm not sure the BYU's dress and grooming standards are reactionary.  Not anymore.  They have become standards in their own right.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not sure I fully comprehend your meaning in saying they have become standards in their own right. Could you elaborate? 

I will say that appearance does convey a message, even if not immediately identifiable. 

A while ago I saw a YouTube video of a concert from the current lineup of the Hollies, one of my favorite British Invasion bands of the 1960s and ‘70s. They were dressed in white shirts and conservative, dark ties. They could have passed for Mormon missionaries. At that moment. I felt even better about being a Hollies fan than before. I guess it’s because of the image they conveyed, a courageous intent to <look> respectable, eschewing the garish or “grunge” look we have come to expect from rock bands over the years. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Beards are allowed now.  I have a son who is an active member of the Church, and with a temple recommend, who has worn a beard for years.  A very nice well groomed beard, I will say.

If he were offered a calling in a higher leadership position he would likely be asked to shave his beard off, though.  I think because higher leadership positions involve setting some type of group leadership example and since there may some in the group who may not approve of men wearing a beard there would likely be less conflict in the group i9f the leader of the group wasn't wearing a beard.  Or at least I think that is the reasoning behind the ban for men in higher leadership positions.

Beards were allowed in the temple even back in the ‘70s. Just not at Church schools or on missions. 

Things haven’t changed all that much. 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Beards are allowed now.  I have a son who is an active member of the Church, and with a temple recommend, who has worn a beard for years.  A very nice well groomed beard, I will say.

If he were offered a calling in a higher leadership position he would likely be asked to shave his beard off, though.  I think because higher leadership positions involve setting some type of group leadership example and since there may some in the group who may not approve of men wearing a beard there would likely be less conflict in the group i9f the leader of the group wasn't wearing a beard.  Or at least I think that is the reasoning behind the ban for men in higher leadership positions.

I struggle to see what kind of example someone is setting by shaving a beard other than absolute obedience to unwritten rules and the whims of a higher leader. Seriously, is the example simply to show that they are church broke?  Seems more like a statement than an example.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I can tell you as one who was a BYU student under the Oaks administration that many of us did not fully grasp the advisability even back then. From the vantage point of 50 years removed from it, I can more clearly see the wisdom of it today, to the point that I’m comfortable trusting the high leadership of the Church to specify dress and grooming standards at its four college campuses. 

I'm also comfortable trusting in the leadership of the church to specify dress and grooming standards at church schools, because I see it as a 'no harm, no foul' situation.  If the leadership is wrong in the standards they require (if they are irrelevant and/or arbitrary), no one is harmed by it.  Having to keep grooming standards you don't like isn't going to hurt anyone, and in a lot of ways it's a good lesson on how being an adult does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no consequences.  

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I struggle to see what kind of example someone is setting by shaving a beard other than absolute obedience to unwritten rules and the whims of a higher leader. Seriously, is the example simply to show that they are church broke?  Seems more like a statement than an example.

Unwritten?  What makes you think the rule isn't written down in the Church handbook?  Maybe they would explain if you asked them the reason for that counsel..

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not sure I fully comprehend your meaning in saying they have become standards in their own right. Could you elaborate? 

To the extent that BYU's standards were "reactionary" (responsive to hippies, rather than created in their own right), they are no longer so.

By way of example, I have a friend who has been in a bishopric for 8+ years (first as a counselor, next as a bishop).  He'll likely be released in a few months.  He has told me that he wants to grow a beard, largely because he's never grown one before and because he's been necessarily clean-shaven for many years now.  But what if, six months in to him having a beard, he finds that he really likes how it looks?  So much so that the beard isn't a response to him being released as bishop or an experiment, but instead becomes a part of his "look" that he wants to maintain moving forward?  At that point the beard would, for him, become an expression in its own right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Unwritten?  What makes you think the rule isn't written down in the Church handbook?  Maybe they would explain if you asked them the reason for that counsel..

Because it's not. There is nothing in the handbook that says a person in position X must be clean shaven, yet that unwritten standard is often maintained by upper church management. For example, when I was bishop I was told that I should be clean shaven. I didn't ask why because I'd always experienced clean-shaven bishops so I just thought that was the way it must be.

My current bishop had a well-trimmed goatee FOREVER but when a 70 visited the stake he was told he had to shave it. There's no rule or handbook instruction yet he is required to be obedient to this unwritten rule.

If it is written, please show me. CFR.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm also comfortable trusting in the leadership of the church to specify dress and grooming standards at church schools, because I see it as a 'no harm, no foul' situation.  If the leadership is wrong in the standards they require (if they are irrelevant and/or arbitrary), no one is harmed by it.  Having to keep grooming standards you don't like isn't going to hurt anyone, and in a lot of ways it's a good lesson on how being an adult does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no consequences.  

I kind of agree, but I also disagree.

I think capricious rules do hurt. Is a beard really a big eternal deal. No. But creating silly rules creates an atmosphere of obedience for obedience sake, not because it is important. Silly rules diminish the important rules by gaining a kind of parity. People at BYU know they can't have sx, drink alcohol, or have a beard. Obviously, those rules are not equal, yet they become equal by the way they are enforced. I think that does a disservice to the entire culture and church.

There is really something to be said for teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves. There are no eternal principles behind meaningless rules like the no beard policy, other than, arguably, being obedient to anyone who is your ecclesiastical superior. I think that's a poor message to send.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Because it's not. There is nothing in the handbook that says a person in position X must be clean shaven, yet that unwritten standard is often maintained by upper church management. For example, when I was bishop I was told that I should be clean shaven. I didn't ask why because I'd always experienced clean-shaven bishops so I just thought that was the way it must be.

My current bishop had a well-trimmed goatee FOREVER but when a 70 visited the stake he was told he had to shave it. There's no rule or handbook instruction yet he is required to be obedient to this unwritten rule.

If it is written, please show me. CFR.

I don't think it's a written rule.  I've looked and looked.

Wearing a white shirt to pass the Sacrament isn't a written rule, either.  But it's a fairly well-entrenched cultural tradition/expectation in the Church (in the U.S., but also in many other countries).  So are members of the bishopric wearing suits during the three-hour block, women wearing dresses during the three-hour block, taking the Sacrament with the right hand, standing when a General Authority enters the room, and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 14, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm also comfortable trusting in the leadership of the church to specify dress and grooming standards at church schools, because I see it as a 'no harm, no foul' situation.  If the leadership is wrong in the standards they require (if they are irrelevant and/or arbitrary), no one is harmed by it.  Having to keep grooming standards you don't like isn't going to hurt anyone, and in a lot of ways it's a good lesson on how being an adult does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no consequences.  

I’m not sure it’s necessarily “no harm, no foul”. We wouldn’t have viewed it that way when I was a youth in the sixties and seventies. For a lot of people. it is a freedom-of-expression issue, and they cherish that freedom. 

Whatever they be, and whatever their worth, I think dress and grooming codes need to be carefully pondered and deliberated because of the very personal impact and control they exert on so many folks. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it's a written rule.  I've looked and looked.

Wearing a white shirt to pass the Sacrament isn't a written rule, either.  But it's a fairly well-entrenched cultural tradition/expectation in the Church (in the U.S., but also in many other countries).  So are members of the bishopric wearing suits during the three-hour block, women wearing dresses during the three-hour block, taking the Sacrament with the right hand, standing when a General Authority enters the room, and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

The late, venerable but much-maligned Elder Boyd K. Packer referred to such as “the unwritten order of things.” 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I kind of agree, but I also disagree.

I think capricious rules do hurt.

I'm not sure the Church's rules are "capricious."  Some have elements of arbitrariness about them, thought.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is a beard really a big eternal deal. No.

Life is full of things we do which are not "big eternal deal{s}," but in the aggregate the end up mattering quite a bit.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But creating silly rules creates an atmosphere of obedience for obedience sake, not because it is important.

But I don't think the Church is doing that.  The rules promulgated by the Church virtually all have readily-apparent rationales for them.

Moreover, obedience is itself a worthwhile principle to teach.  By way of example, when I went to Basic Training, I was issued two pairs of combat boots.  We were ordered by our drill sargeants to use white-out to place a small dot on the top back outside edge of one pair of boots.  We were then told "Odd Day, Dot Day," meaning that we were obligated to wear the pair of boots with white dots on them on "odd"-numbered days, and the other pair on even-numbered days.  We were then periodically inspected to make sure what we were obeying the "Odd Day, Dot Day" rule, and those who didn't were punished with push-ups or extra running or some such.

Now this may seem like an absurd thing, but toward the end of Basic Training one of the drill sargeants clued us in.  The "Odd Day, Dot Day" rule was primarily intended to force trainees to maintain both sets of boots, to wear them, break them in, keep them polished, etc.  Breaking in boots (back then anyway) was fairly unpleasant.  They were very stiff, caused a lot of blisters, we had to keep them polished, etc.  But blisters are much better in training than in combat.  Combat is not the time to be breaking in boots, the sargeant said.  So our battalion's leaders had come up with "Odd Day, Dot Day."  

Additionaly, our sargeant said, "Odd Day, Dot Day" taught us the general principle of following orders.  So in that sense, the rule was intended to promulgate "obedience for obedience sake."

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Silly rules diminish the important rules by gaining a kind of parity. People at BYU know they can't have sex, drink alcohol, or have a beard. Obviously, those rules are not equal, yet they become equal by the way they are enforced. I think that does a disservice to the entire culture and church.

I don't think anyone at BYU seriously believes that having a beard is a moral failing, let alone comparable to fornication or imbibing.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is really something to be said for teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves.

Quite so.  But there's also something to be said for obedience.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are no eternal principles behind meaningless rules like the no beard policy, other than, arguably, being obedient to anyone who is your ecclesiastical superior. I think that's a poor message to send.

There are no eternal principles behind the Church's prohibition against cooking food in church kitchens, either.  But that doesn't mean that there are no principles behind that rule at all.

The same, I think, can be said about BYU's rules.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it's a written rule.  I've looked and looked.

Wearing a white shirt to pass the Sacrament isn't a written rule, either.  But it's a fairly well-entrenched cultural tradition/expectation in the Church (in the U.S., but also in many other countries).  So are members of the bishopric wearing suits during the three-hour block, women wearing dresses during the three-hour block, taking the Sacrament with the right hand, standing when a General Authority enters the room, and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.

When those unwritten rules are enforced as if a commandment of God, I think it quite literally becomes an issue of "taking the name of God in vain" in that someone in authority presumes to speak for God on something that God has not spoken on, nor likely cares about.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The late, venerable but much-maligned Elder Boyd K. Packer referred to such as “the unwritten order of things.” 

Very true.

The unwritten order of things can also be called "cultural expectations". Nothing wrong with it as long as the limitations are recognized and not passed off as God's law.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the standard has to be set somewhere.  Why is the speed limit in my neighborhood 25 MPH and not 30?  Why not 26.4?  

I think the more fundamental question is "Should we have a speed limit at all?"  If the answer to that is "Yes," then the next question is "Is the speed limit reasonable, even if it necessarily has some level of arbitrariness in it?"  If the answer to that question is "Yes," then the next question could be "Can I voice my perspective about modifying the speed limit?"  The answer to that question is "Sure, but ultimately the speed limit is a matter for the legislature to decide."

So it is, I think, with the Church's modesty standards. 

Should the Church have any modesty standards at all?  I think the answer is plainly "Yes."  

Are the Church's modesty standards reasonable, even if there is some level of arbitrariness to them?"  Again, I think "Yes."

I agree that a standard needs to be set.  In a church where the leadership purports to be speaking with God's authority  (and I believe that they do) when it gives directions to the members, I would hope that the standard is based on His feelings on the matter.

I think that the modesty standards have been a bit unreasonable in the past few years but I'm hopeful they are moving towards resetting at a better point.  The shortening of the garment sleeve for both men and women seems to be an example of the church recognizing some of the arbitrariness of it's past standards and attempting to fix that. 

(To be clear, I personally don't care about the shortening of the garment sleeve as none of my clothing had very short sleeves.  I don't think its significance is rooted in women being able to wear more styles of shirts than they could before).

Quote

 

I don't know.  Perhaps it's not a matter of "modest' v. immodest," and instead is a matter of "more modest v. less modest."

They're backed up by the general concept of modesty, surely?

Again, "more modest v. less modest" seems to be in play.

 

I don't think that works.  That's not how past members interpreted it (as more modest vs. less modest).  

Quote

And perhaps there is more attention being paid to consistency here.  People who have been to the temple are asked to be modest in their dress, and the wearing of the garment facilitates that.  Perhaps teaching more-modest-than-average standards to teens is a good way to help them appreciate and prepare for the temple.

 

It could be. Personally I see the conflation of 'garment standards' with 'modesty standards' as an example of looking beyond the mark, or an example of making a hedge around the law to better help someone keep it.  It sounds good in concept, but can actually do more harm than good in the long run.

Quote

 

No, that's not what I mean.  BYU standards were previously "reactionary" to some extent.  They were a reaction to the hippie stuff going on in the 60s ad early 70s.

Now, however, they have come into their own.  The BYU standards aren't reactionary anymore.  They exist in their own right.  They are a statement in their own right.  

Consider, by way of analogy, the dress and grooming standards of the U.S. Army.  Here's an image of them in uniform during the Civil War:

 

And here:

 

Plenty of long hair, beards, sideburns, etc.  

Would any of that pass muster in today's Army?  Nope.  See here:

The dress and grooming standards of a given community can matter.  A lot.  BYU's standards have an obvious and predominant purpose (even if they do, in the end, include some measure of arbitrariness).

I think the general concept of dress and grooming is important.  Consider the washings and special clothing worn when attending the temple.  The expressive symbolism of how we dress and groom ourselves matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I agree that dress and grooming standards of a community matter.  But they only matter to the extent that they are producing the community's desired result.  Our community desired result is ultimately to choose God above all else.  Grooming standards that aren't based on anything but leader opinion don't necessarily help with that.  I'm not saying that they are wrong or bad.  I just think they can be less effective and spiritually confusing.

As far as the military goes, the standard of the military were reactionary to the 1960s and 1970s to a large extent as well, and were also used as a way to get rid of diversity (in looks as well as thought) while indoctrinating each recruit to be completely subordinate to their superior regardless of whether or not they agreed.  Their facial hair standards are also pragmatic as gas masks don't seal well when facial hair is present.  That's why people who work in the oil field or in refineries also must be clean shaven.  It's a safety issue.  

So military standards exist to produce two required/desired results.  The reason for our modesty standards are muddy though.  We don't know why beards aren't allowed on BYU for example.  That standard does not seem to exist to bring our church community closer to our desired result.  The same can be said for our current ideas about the exposed shoulders of unendowed men and women.  We're told it's immodest, but we can't explain why, or how it hurts us, other than 'disagreeing with the prophet is bad.'

To be clear, I'm not saying that dress and grooming standards should not exist.  I'm saying that they should serve a spiritual purpose that is not based on variable human opinion and that they should help accomplish our desired result.  That is why I think the washings and clothing in the temple are impressive and effective.  Like you said, they are rich in symbolism and covenant and having an eye single to God's glory. Temple standards exist for our sakes.  They actively help us draw closer to God.  

Not letting a YW wear a tankini to a swim party because it's technically a two piece suit so is immodest (though no midriff skin is exposed) doesn't really serve any purpose at all.  It's modesty for modesty sake instead of modesty for the girl's sake.   

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Beards are allowed now.  I have a son who is an active member of the Church, and with a temple recommend, who has worn a beard for years.  A very nice well groomed beard, I will say.

If he were offered a calling in a higher leadership position he would likely be asked to shave his beard off, though.  I think because higher leadership positions involve setting some type of group leadership example and since there may some in the group who may not approve of men wearing a beard there would likely be less conflict in the group i9f the leader of the group wasn't wearing a beard.  Or at least I think that is the reasoning behind the ban for men in higher leadership positions.

Sorry to be confusing.  I was asking why beards aren't allowed at BYU now.

There is no church wide ban on beards for men in leadership positions.  It's completely dependent upon the opinion of the stake president.  Our stake president won't allow beards on bishops or councilors.  My parents' stake president does (and their stake has two bishops with full beards).

As far as I know, the only beard ban appears to be BYU and serving in the temple.

Edited June 14, 2018 by bluebell

[Calm]

I would have no problem if it was not just thrown out by many leaders from what I have heard and experienced ( when my husband was called into the HC) as simply a test of obedience as if not wearing a beard is a sign of faithfulness or greater spiritual worthiness for leaders and more of what it likely is, which is a uniform look similar to having missionaries wear suits and dresses/skirts.  The more or less same look on all our leaders creates the same sense of familiarity as walking into the standard chapel or singing the same songs.

I experienced this when in Russia, everything else I felt inherently braced for not knowing the city or the language and knowing that many were distrustful of us as strangers...and few if friendly showed it in their faces until introduced to us by another Russian.  Walking into a Sabbath meeting where a couple of dozen members from all over the world (international branch) were meeting in an old school was like walking into our home ward as soon as we could hear the prelude music and see the brothers and sisters dressed in the 'church uniform'.

If it was presented like that, like wearing school colors on game day or matching outfits for a family picture, to create a sense of visual unity in the community that would contribute to emotional unity, I think not only would it be less resented by many, but like school colors would be seen as something fun or special to do by many.

Instead it seems favored to present it as one more test of what we are willing to sacrifice for God as if that is all God wants from us, to give up things we treasure, every sacrifice just brings a chance to sacrifice again and if there isn't something God wants from us, our leaders will come up with one instead of what it could become, embracing it because we love being a part of our spiritual family.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that a standard needs to be set.  In a church where the leadership purports to be speaking with God's authority  (and I believe that they do) when it gives directions to the members, I would hope that the standard is based on His feelings on the matter.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."  (D&C 58:26).  Also consider the experience of the Brother of Jared in Ether 2:

Quote

22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?

23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.

So the Lord's "feelings on the matter" were . . . for the Brother of Jared to formulate a plan that would address the issue at hand.

I think he wants us to do this.  A lot.  He wants us to apply the principles we have received.  With reason and prudence and wisdom.  

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that dress and grooming standards of a community matter.  But they only matter to the extent that they are producing the community's desired result.  Our community desired result is ultimately to choose God above all else.  Grooming standards that aren't based on anything but leader opinion don't necessarily help with that.  

But they aren't "based on anything but leader opinion."  They are based on the generalized principles of modesty.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not saying that they are wrong or bad.  I just think they can be less effective and spiritually confusing.

Fair enough.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as the military goes, the standard of the military were reactionary to the 1960s and 1970s to a large extent as well, and were also used as a way to get rid of diversity (in looks as well as thought) while indoctrinating each recruit to be completely subordinate to their superior regardless of whether or not they agreed.  Their facial hair standards are also pragmatic as gas masks don't seal well when facial hair is present.  That's why people who work in the oil field or in refineries also must be clean shaven.  It's a safety issue.

Agreed.  That's sort of my point.  There are pragmatic reasons (safety issues), but also symbolic reasons ("a way to get rid of diversity"), and also as a means of demonstrating obedience.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So military standards exist to produce two required/desired results.  The reason for our modesty standards are muddy though.  We don't know why beards aren't allowed on BYU for example.  That standard does not seem to exist to bring our church community closer to our desired result.  The same can be said for our current ideas about the exposed shoulders of unendowed men and women.  We're told it's immodest, but we can't explain why, or how it hurts us, other than 'disagreeing with the prophet is bad.'

I think we can explain.  We believe that modesty in dress is important.  

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To be clear, I'm not saying that dress and grooming standards should not exist.  I'm saying that they should serve a spiritual purpose that is not based on variable human opinion and that they should help accomplish our desired result.  

But that "variable" will always exist.  That's the problem with setting a standard: there will always be grounds for disagreeing with it.  And yet the standard must be set anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

When those unwritten rules are enforced as if a commandment of God, I think it quite literally becomes an issue of "taking the name of God in vain" in that someone in authority presumes to speak for God on something that God has not spoken on, nor likely cares about.

"As if a commandment of God" being the operative phrase here.  I don't really see that much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

To anyone who feels that the rules prohibiting beards are based on generalized principles of modesty:

What is modest about men not wearing a beard?

Clean shaven means naked. The face is naked when not wearing a beard.

I've never thought of a man wearing a beard as being immodest.  I don't wear one because I just feel better and I think I look better not having hair on my face.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."  (D&C 58:26).  Also consider the experience of the Brother of Jared in Ether 2:

So the Lord's "feelings on the matter" were . . . for the Brother of Jared to formulate a plan that would address the issue at hand.

This is actually a good argument against having specific dress and groom standards.  Currently our church's dress and grooming standards are very compelling for members and leave very little room for people to seek their own direction from God on the matter or to formulate their own plans that would address modesty issues.

I'm not saying that the church is doing anything wrong with setting the standards that it does, I just don't see these scripture examples as being supportive of that like you do.

Quote

I think he wants us to do this.  A lot.  He wants us to apply the principles we have received.  With reason and prudence and wisdom.  

I agree.  The way that the church currently handles the dress and grooming of members does not really allow people to apply these principles in their own lives.

Quote

But they aren't "based on anything but leader opinion."  They are based on the generalized principles of modesty.

And the 'generalized principles of modesty' are based on our leaders' opinions.

Quote

I think we can explain.  We believe that modesty in dress is important.  

Yes, but we can't explain why sleeveless shirts are immodest.  We can't explain why wearing a sleeveless shirt is spiritually harmful to us, for example. That's what I was speaking of.  

We've tried explaining it in the past and we've gotten things like 'girls need to dress modestly for boys so they don't cause them to sin,' which has been really detrimental to both boys and girls in the church and created secondary problems (like college age boys who think it's appropriate to go up to girls at church schools and castigate them for not dressing modestly enough even though they are not actually dressed immodestly).

Quote

 

But that "variable" will always exist.  That's the problem with setting a standard: there will always be grounds for disagreeing with it.  And yet the standard must be set anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You're right, it will always exist to some extent.  It is the extent that it currently seems to exist that I don't think is good.

Edited June 14, 2018 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

To anyone who feels that the rules prohibiting beards are based on generalized principles of modesty:

 

Straw man. I don't think anyone here has said that.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I would have no problem if it was not just thrown out by many leaders from what I have heard and experienced ( when my husband was called into the HC) as simply a test of obedience as if not wearing a beard is a sign of faithfulness or greater spiritual worthiness for leaders and more of what it likely is, which is a uniform look similar to having missionaries wear suits and dresses/skirts.  The more or less same look on all our leaders creates the same sense of familiarity as walking into the standard chapel or singing the same songs.

 

But assuming the the reason is spelled out in a way such as this, doesn't the decision to comply still come down to a test of obedience?

And in any event, do you reject the idea that there are some things we will be called upon by God to do that we don't immediately see the reason for but we do them anyway as part of the test of faith while in mortality? What about the concept of the Abrahamic test? What about, for instance, the decision to pay tithing when you're not sure you'll be able to make ends meet in a given month?