Beards

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

It was also not the only “riot” on BYU campus:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54025-byu-riot-and-pillow-fight-of-1987/

 

Well snap! Never heard of it. This was far worse than 1965. I stand in awe of your memory.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

That maybe you should keep to yourself oh the future out of respect for the women who have been victims of their safe, intimate spaces being invaded instead of sharing it as if a manly rite of passage. 
 

This is not the first time you have shared the story on this board.  Maybe it can be the last time. 

Once again, I stand in awe of your memory. I had forgotten. A manly rite of passage it was not. It was a foolish thing that could have cost us our college enrollment and maybe worse. I said I learned from this and never did anything like it again.

Perhaps it can be the last. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

said I learned from this and never did anything like it again.

Maybe still some learning to do…which is not a bad thing, we all should be open to learning no matter what age. And if last time, I would be grateful. 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe still some learning to do…which is not a bad thing, we all should be open to learning no matter what age. And if last time, I would be grateful. 

Deleted

Edited August 31, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Deleted

Edited August 31, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It was 1965. I was 18, still climbing Fool’s Hill, which at times for me was Fool’s Mountain. It was another world and I was a different person. 

I believe it.  But you seem to be sharing it as a fond memory, but hopefully you see barging into a woman's space and trying to take her underwear differently now than you did at 18.  If you do, then maybe the 'wow what a fun night!' way that you share it doesn't exactly fit the maturity and understanding that you've gained all of these years.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I believe it.  But you seem to be sharing it as a fond memory, but hopefully you see barging into a woman's space and trying to take her underwear differently now than you did at 18.  If you do, then maybe the 'wow what a fun night!' way that you share it doesn't exactly fit the maturity and understanding that you've gained all of these years.

One needs to consider the context that I provided. At the time such events were common and portrayed as innocent college fun. While people and friends in other colleges were deep into the full 1960s experience, we at BYU were grousing about beards. As I said, it was a very different time and I was a very different person. In perfect hindsight and following current criteria it was stupid and disrespectful. You missed the part that the girls dorms were locked down. I do not believe any rooms were entered. Moreover, some ladies enthusiastically threw things into the crowd of guys from windows and balconies, but I can understand that it would be traumatic for others. My roommate and I remained in our room as we realized that what was supposed to be a prank got way out of control and could have lead to serious consequences for a lot of people. It was an event in my life. I learned from it. You would be wrong if you think that I am capable of doing anything like that today or that I put it into some sort of category of manly triumphs. Given the nature of Fool’s Hill and the way men climb it, it would be dishonest to say it was not fun and exciting, but when it dawned on us that we could get some severe discipline we didn’t want it known who were the instruments. There it is. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 8/31/2021 at 8:27 AM, bluebell said:

When she shook my husband's hand and realized he was a counselor she told him that her and her husband would have held him down and shaved him (i'm sure she wasn't being literal, of course).  My husband, who is a very good man but someone who is not ever intimidated by other people, replied "no you wouldn't have", smiled, and walked away.

A few years ago, a family-related Church event (ordination?) for one of my former Young Men brought some of his relatives to our ward's Sunday service. A younger cousin (whom I knew from previous visits when the boys were younger) was sporting a fine-looking beard. I stopped him in the foyer, gestured to his beard, and told him how good it looked. His visiting uncle saw me, came over, and said, 'I'm glad someone else is telling T-- to shave that horrible thing off. It's embarrassing. He doesn't look like he even served a mission'.

'Actually, I was telling him how good it looks. I'm quite envious'.

This set the uncle off, and he started to rail against both of us. Just then, a member of our bishopric walked past, sporting a very bushy beard. I hailed him and asked, 'T---, what do you think of this young man's beard?'

'I think it looks great!' was the reply as he hurried off.

'Why on earth would I care what that mans thinks?' demanded the angry uncle. 'I don't even know who he is'.

'Just the first counsellor in our bishopric', I replied.

It was at that point that the uncle appears to have concluded that our entire ward was apostate ...

Quote

Seriously though, what is wrong with some people?!

It's probably not my place to make assumptions, but when I was studying in America, Pres Hinckley came to our university to speak. He told us during his talk that members of the Church get wrapped up in things that don't matter because it makes them feel righteous even though they are omitting 'the weightier matters of the law'. It is far easier to police what other people look like, he said, than to faithfully perform one's home or visiting teaching.

In many cases, however, the impacts are not small. Your husband was fine with inappropriate criticism. My boy's cousin may not have been. In such circumstances, it is important that we defend and protect people from other members' hang-ups/crusades.

I have a good mate here who is Muslim but loves the Church and would join in an instant if his very devout wife were to let him. Not long ago, his sister was living with them following a messy divorce (triggered by domestic violence), and she mentioned that she was thinking of exploring Christianity. My mate said he was fine with that as long as she checked out 'Hamba's church' first. So she started coming to church with me each Sunday. She liked it, and after several months accepted the invitation to meet with the missionaries, eventually choosing to be baptised. Great stuff!

We then got a senior missionary couple from America in our stake, and the sister was a bit tightly wound. She stopped me in the chapel one of her first Sundays in our ward and asked me what was up with the way this newly baptised member dressed for church. 'What do you mean?' I asked.

'Her clothing is clearly not Church standard'.

'In our ward, we don't act like Zoramites and turn people away based on dress', I replied.

'You know what I mean!' she countered. 'My husband and I will have a chat with her'. (The poor husband at this point was squirming with discomfort and shot me a look that clearly said, 'Help me!')

'No, you won't!' I replied sternly. 'This is my dear friend's sister. She is important to me, and she is fragile in many ways. If she indeed needs to alter her dress, she will figure that out on her own at some point. If you say anything to her, you run the risk of making her feel unwanted at church'. Then I added: 'And if you do that, I will personally see to it that you are both sent home from your missions'.

[Navidad]

Since we are on this kind of cultural subject, is there anything written down anywhere regulating dress for sacrament service? I often wear a blue dress shirt, because I own quite a few of them and my wife says they match my eyes! Am I violating some church standard by wearing a blue shirt to sacrament service? No one has ever said a word to me about it. I also have a goatee. No one has ever commented on that. I also wear a lot of Winnie the Pooh ties. I hope they are ok!

We seem to have a number of young couples moving back here to where they were born and grew up. They seem to be coming from rural areas and many of the young men are fully bearded. Of course, I come from a Mennonite background, so I am totally used to full beards on men, especially during hunting season. The more conservative men shave between their lips and nose - no mustaches. Cultural traditions are fascinating things! I believe David O. MacKay was the first president since Joseph Smith not to have facial hair. I wonder if the facial hair expectation began during his presidency? Did he ever comment on that issue?

[Calm]

On 9/7/2021 at 2:32 AM, Navidad said:

I also wear a lot of Winnie the Pooh ties. I hope they are ok!

My husband has Tigger ties and Scrooge McDuck.  Pooh Bear socks.  He wore them when he was in a bishopric, don’t know if he conducted wearing them, but he has taught Primary and given SM talks with them in full view  

White shirts may be expected by some, but other than wanting those intending to bless and pass the sacrament in a white shirt, there are no actual rules.  And I am not sure if that is more guideline, because I have seen other colors, including black when not enough deacons to priests were available and they asked Elders to fill in. 
 

I think black shirt and black suit looks quite nice, especially with the right looking tie. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Navidad said:

is there anything written down anywhere regulating dress for sacrament service?

Quote

Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number3

Quote

Those who administer the sacrament should do so in a dignified manner, realizing that they are representing the Lord. The bishopric encourages them to ponder the Savior’s Atonement as they prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament.

Those who administer the sacrament should be well groomed and clean. They should not wear clothing or jewelry that might detract from the worship and covenant making that are the purpose of the sacrament. If the bishop needs to counsel a priesthood holder about such matters, he does so with love. He also takes into account the person’s maturity in the Church.

The passing of the sacrament should be natural and not overly formal. For example, certain actions (such as holding the left hand behind the back) or appearances (such as dressing alike) should not be required.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/18-priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings.title_number27-p132?lang=eng#title_number27#title_number27

[Hamba Tuhan]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Since we are on this kind of cultural subject, is there anything written down anywhere regulating dress for sacrament service?

Please see my post directly above yours. There is no regulated dress (or grooming) for attending sacrament meetings. The Handbook is online if you wish to verify what I just said. Anyone who tells you anything different is repeating some cultural baggage s/he picked up somewhere.

ETA: I see that calm has quoted the handbook for you.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

White shirts may be expected by some, but other than wanting those intending to pass the sacrament in a white shirt, there are no actual rules.

And that 'rule' -- which was actually only a recommendation, with a caveat that it must not be mandated -- is completely gone from the Handbook now anyway.

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I often wear a blue dress shirt, because I own quite a few of them and my wife says they match my eyes! Am I violating some church standard by wearing a blue shirt to sacrament service? No one has ever said a word to me about it.

If your wife likes you in blue then who cares what anyone else thinks. You don't have to go home with any of them.  

 

Quote

I also have a goatee. No one has ever commented on that.

See above.

 

Quote

I also wear a lot of Winnie the Pooh ties. I hope they are ok!

Oh bother... 

 

[mfbukowski]

Though things are changing, old expectations disappear slowly.

Where I live, white shirts are expected and since covid, beards have become a new "thing" since we were without church meetings for a long time, and no one knew if you had one or not.

Temple workers and missionaries may not have facial hair.

I think that gives the impression that it is a "no-no"

I have not looked at a handbook for a while, though.

The reason all these grooming standards developed was because one definitely did not want a "hippie" - or earlier- a "beatnik" in leadership.

"Unprofessional "

 

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And that 'rule' -- which was actually only a recommendation, with a caveat that it must not be mandated -- is completely gone from the Handbook now anyway.

It was a cultural expectation in an international church, but within the culture, the expectation lingers 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Oh bother... 

One of AA Milne's close relatives worked for me for several years. Since I find Pooh to be an extraordinary lay theologian, I once asked her if Milne had any theological interests. She responded with a profound no! Seems the family didn't always get along. Every time I wore a Pooh tie she scowled at me. I stopped wearing them until my next position in a new district! It seems that AA Milne was a brilliant writer and a complex individual. I think that may go hand in hand sometimes - or maybe even oftentimes!

[2BizE]

A close friend was called into a bishopric by the Stake President. The friend asked if he would have to shave his beard for the calling. The SP replied, “There are many false teachings in the church, and that is one of them.”  

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

A close friend was called into a bishopric by the Stake President. The friend asked if he would have to shave his beard for the calling. The SP replied, “There are many false teachings in the church, and that is one of them.”  

Bravo to that SP.

[bOObOO]

19 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

A close friend was called into a bishopric by the Stake President. The friend asked if he would have to shave his beard for the calling. The SP replied, “There are many false teachings in the church, and that is one of them.”  

And then I suspect the other shoe dropped and that SP said further: 

Of course a man does not need to shave his beard for his calling into a bishopric.  But it is his opportunity and pleasure to do so to show he is willing to sustain those who have called him to that position, and their counsel regarding beards.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

And then I suspect the other shoe dropped and that SP said further: 

Of course a man does not need to shave his beard for his calling into a bishopric.  But it is his opportunity and pleasure to do so to show he is willing to sustain those who have called him to that position, and their counsel regarding beards.

What counsel is that?  There is nothing in the handbook that says that someone in the bishopric, or a stake presidency, cannot have a beard or other facial hair.  There are no letters from the First Presidency or the Twelve saying that.  What counsel are you talking about?

[Ragerunner]

It’s just hair that naturally grows on a mans face. I honestly don’t get it, God put it there.

I was part of a stake presidency and had a beard. One evening, months later the Stake President went to an area training and came back and said everyone in leadership had to shave their facial hair. I did so, to my wife’s displeasure. Two days later the stake President let us know he miss interpreted the council he heard and we could have facial hair.

Luckily for me it grows back fast.😂

There are so many real challenges in life, facial hair and how someone dresses just seems really low on the concern ladder. 

[Bob Crockett]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

What counsel is that?  There is nothing in the handbook that says that someone in the bishopric, or a stake presidency, cannot have a beard or other facial hair.  There are no letters from the First Presidency or the Twelve saying that.  What counsel are you talking about?

When I was a bishop I went to my monthly meeting with the stake president.  He told me that he had come out of training with the Seventy and was told that all persons in priesthood leadership had to be cleanshaven.  

It wasn't a real matter of interest to me, as I was always cleanshaven and I didn't care one way or the other.  But it really bothered him to tell me that, and at the end of our inteview he rescinded his direction to me.  Kinda weird.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

When I was a bishop I went to my monthly meeting with the stake president.  He told me that he had come out of training with the Seventy and was told that all persons in priesthood leadership had to be cleanshaven.  

It wasn't a real matter of interest to me, as I was always cleanshaven and I didn't care one way or the other.  But it really bothered him to tell me that, and at the end of our inteview he rescinded his direction to me.  Kinda weird.

How long ago was that?

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

What counsel is that?  There is nothing in the handbook that says that someone in the bishopric, or a stake presidency, cannot have a beard or other facial hair.  There are no letters from the First Presidency or the Twelve saying that.  What counsel are you talking about?

Oops, nevermind.  Apparently the rules have changed and beards are in now.  I'm looking forward to seeing these men in our next General Conference sessions.

https://www.ldsdaily.com/entertainment/church-embraces-bearded-history-with-new-grooming-standards/