Facial Hair

[DisRuptive1]

Yeah me too. Luckily I can't see mine. It seems my great mane is on my butt and not my chin.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 22 2005, 11:37 AM

It's hard for men to shave "back there." It is the duty of the woman, if she finds it offensive, to do it for him. Most men don't care about the hair, it's the women that care. So help your man out!

They could sit down in hot wax and then stand up real fast. They just don't want to. Wimps!

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 22 2005, 08:49 AM

A few words on beards from the Early Church Fathers:

"How womanly it is for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, and to arerange his hair at the mirror, shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them! . . . . For God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest -- a sign of strength and rule." (St. Clement of Alexandria, c. 195 AD)

"This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature. . . . It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hariness. (St. Clement of Alexandria)

Well it figures. Here is a recent photo of Clement:

[Jason]

Snow,

Funny!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 22 2005, 03:13 PM

Yeah me too. Luckily I can't see mine. It seems my great mane is on my butt and not my chin.

AGGGGGKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 22 2005, 12:37 PM

It's hard for men to shave "back there." It is the duty of the woman, if she finds it offensive, to do it for him. Most men don't care about the hair, it's the women that care. So help your man out!

I only have one husband and he doesn't have a hairy butt!

[Marsha]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 22 2005, 10:44 PM

I only have one husband and he doesn't have a hairy butt!

Gee thanks for that clarification.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 21 2005, 06:48 PM

It's all part and parcel of "fitting in" to the world's standards of clean shaven. 

To be honest, it goes all the way back to the days of ancient Rome.  Roman culture taught that facial hair was a sign of barbarism.  When you wanted to court Rome, you sent men who were clean shaven. 

Interestingly enough, that's the reason that until VERY recently, Roman Catholic Priests and Bishops were clean shaven.  It was as rollover from the Roman culture days. 

When clean shaven became the thing to do in the US, the LDS followed suit.  It's "barbaric" to have facial hair. 

I only recently learned all this when studying Eastern Orthodox Canons.  Funny thing, the EO's.  It's actually contrary to the Fathers to be clean shaven!  Clean shaven men were considered "feminine".  Only homosexual men were clean shaven.  Real men have facial hair!  At the very least, a man should have hair on his chin, because hairy-ness is a symbol of manhood, which in turn is divine. 

(Not that you wanted to read all that, but hey, that's me...)

You learn something every day!

I never knew much about EO, as you referred to it, except that their "priests"--in file photos--certainly have a face full of hair!

Still, if I were going to object about a 100% clean-shaven mormonism...well, what is hair, anyway? Either way!

Personally, I like to see a person's face: not just their eyes and nose (even the mouth is covered up by a huge, shaggy moustashe).

Still, I hope that those with goatees and moustaches aren't somehow barred from serving, just because of their appearance: that would somehow be just downright.....un-Christlike!

(Can you imagine that "Nazarene"--Jesus is referred to, in the NT as a "nazarene"--saying to his servant Paul:

"Come. Follow me--and shave your face, first...and take off that blue tunic!")

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 22 2005, 01:05 PM

But He has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest -- a sign of strength and rule." (St. Clement of Alexandria, c. 195 AD)

Well, crud. I and my nine measly chest hairs feel completely bereft of strength and rule.

Well, who knows? They probably had those "hairless chests" ruling over the garbage collection of ancient Roman-empire streets.

(In which case, they still "ruled"!)

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 21 2005, 07:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 21 2005, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Mar 21 2005, 06:00 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Mar 21 2005, 05:48 PM

To be honest, it goes all the way back to the days of ancient Rome.  Roman culture taught that facial hair was a sign of barbarism.  When you wanted to court Rome, you sent men who were clean shaven. 

I assume you mean within Christianity. Long before the Romans were clean shaven, the Egyptians were clean shaven. I'm talking no hair at all! Bald as a billiard ball--body and soul! (of course theirs was more related to a distaste for lice than anything else.)

At least, that's what Cecil B. DeMille wants us to think.

That sounds reasonable.

Of course, all those nice marble statues that remain from that time period

clearly show us what the ancient Romans (and Egyptians) thought represented

"beauty".

Truthfully, it appears that most Egyptian kings (pharoahs) had an interestingly-arranged mass of chin hair: tightly compacted and squared off at the bottom of this "beard".

(An "emblem" of the "scepter of power" that they wielded???)

The whole thing is cultural, to me!

The idea (as it applies itself, here) of religion imposing culture, onto people, is still a "strange little bird", to some.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

A few thoughts I am quoting from a similar thread on another board...

The Church's obsession with appearance and dress stems from its reaction to the 60s.  The leadership never got it and as a result the Church has never really come to terms with the cultural changes that occurred or understood why these changes occurred. 

One of the things that fueled the changes of the 60s was the fact that most American institutions were on the wrong side of a number of issues such as racism, war, sexism, environmentalism, and corporate responsiblity.  This was very true of the LDS Church, which seemed to be on the wrong side of just about every social and moral issue.  First and foremost was the church's practice of banning blacks from its priesthood.  (Right behind this was its practice of denying women the priesthood.)

The Church's support of the Vietnam War was another issue.  To me, the war was immoral and America had no business being there in the first place.  To make matters worse, America had escalated its involvement in the war based on lies told to the American public by our leaders.  Despite this, LDS Church members were encouraged to blindly support their country no matter what, right or wrong. 

Basically, the Church never really got past the 60's, which is why LDS culture appears so stuck in the surreal version of the 50's. Hence the ban on beards.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

To make matters worse, America had escalated its involvement in the war based on lies told to the American public by our leaders.

Arguable at best, but that's another story from chest hair.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 04:41 PM

To make matters worse, America had escalated its involvement in the war based on lies told to the American public by our leaders.

Arguable at best, but that's another story from chest hair.

Yea, I don't know my Vietnam history too well, so that one is questionable.

However, if the Church even supported the Vietnam War in any way, that is a moral mistake in my book.

The point being made was that the Church was afraid of the 60's. The Church was on the wrong side of many moral issues being brought up. Those bearded hippies were questioning everything about America's (and the Church's) 1950's view of the world.

And so we have a Church that is stuck culturally in the 1950's for better or worse.

[DisRuptive1]

Nothing wrong with that. It's quite swell if you ask me (just finished watching Pleasantville. Gee golly, I love saying swell!)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Funny...I was thinking of Pleasantville when I made that last post.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

The Church was on the wrong side of many moral issues being brought up.

I count the Church (or at least a major part of it) wrong on the civil rights issue and maybe the birth control issue.

I think you sell the Church a little short. We're not stuck in the '50s, were stuck in the 1910s. Darn good thing, too, if you ask me. I say if you're going to go retro, don't do it in a small way. Eighties nostalgia in the 2000s is ridiculous, not least because it makes me feel old. (I want to be forever young, after all) (how's that for an 80s-song-reference twofer?)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Mar 24 2005, 05:09 PM

The point being made was that the Church was afraid of the 60's. The Church was on the wrong side of many moral issues being brought up. Those bearded hippies were questioning everything about America's (and the Church's) 1950's view of the world.

The 60's were a scary time. Not just for the church either. I grew up just outside of Santa Cruz, California, and trust me, those "bearded hippies" were not all moral crusaders! Most of them were lazy freeloaders who didn't have a problem with taking whatever they wanted and hiding behind their "anti establishment" mantra. It's just too bad the church leaders can't differentiate between the unbathed, unkempt looking hippie, and a well trimmed, bearded man. All they've got to do is take a whiff!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 08:12 PM

I think you sell the Church a little short. We're not stuck in the '50s, were stuck in the 1910s. Darn good thing, too, if you ask me. I say if you're going to go retro, don't do it in a small way.

Historical question:

Were beards out of style in 1910?

If so, when did this happen...in the 19th Century?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 24 2005, 10:32 PM

It's just too bad the church leaders can't differentiate between the unbathed, unkempt looking hippie, and a well trimmed, bearded man.  All they've got to do is take a whiff!

Well the LDS artists have done a wonderful job of trimming Jesus' beard. But even with the neatly trimmed beard, I expect if he showed up today looking like that, he would be denied a position as a Temple Worker, or a position in the Bishopric, etc.

Not to mention all those bearded LDS prophets of decades past...

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 25 2005, 10:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 25 2005, 10:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 24 2005, 08:12 PM

I think you sell the Church a little short.  We're not stuck in the '50s, were stuck in the 1910s.  Darn good thing, too, if you ask me.  I say if you're going to go retro, don't do it in a small way.

Historical question:

Were beards out of style in 1910?

If so, when did this happen...in the 19th Century?

Yeah, beards were pretty much out of style by 1910. The beard fashion pretty much started with Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s and ran through the 1880s. You look at pictures of the founders of Orange County and its cities, which got their start in the 1880s, and everyone looks like the guys from ZZ Top. All the Presidents from Lincoln to McKinley in 1896 had beards, with the exception of Andrew Johnson (who should have worn one to cover his weak chin) and Grover Cleveland, who had a mustache.

[alpha_female]

If this is the case, if any of the old presidents were to try and participate in the church today, they would be rejected because of their beards. Plus, if you look at most depictions of Christ, He has long hair and a beard, if He were to return, He'd be rejected for the same reason. Interestingly, in early Christian art, Christ is depicted as clean-shaven. It was only later that He ended up with looking like a hippie.

[Outshined]

Yes, Christ is almost always painted as a white man, too.

In my ward, there are plenty of beards worn; doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 25 2005, 01:34 PM

Yeah, beards were pretty much out of style by 1910. The beard fashion pretty much started with Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s and ran through the 1880s.

Beards may have been out of style for the mainstream, but President Joseph F. Smith still sported a very long white beard at that time.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by alpha_female@Mar 26 2005, 12:32 AM

If this is the case, if any of the old presidents were to try and participate in the church today, they would be rejected because of their beards. Plus, if you look at most depictions of Christ, He has long hair and a beard, if He were to return, He'd be rejected for the same reason. Interestingly, in early Christian art, Christ is depicted as clean-shaven. It was only later that He ended up with looking like a hippie.

Probably because early Christians were clean shaven? Were not alot of Romans clean shaven?

Then perhaps the barbarians who converted to Christianity painted Jesus with a beard, because they had beards?

(That is just a guess)

God (and Jesus) are indeed created in our image.

Why don't the LDS artists give Jesus a good clean shave, instead of that short trimmed beard?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Mar 31 2005, 10:46 AM

Probably because early Christians were clean shaven? Were not alot of Romans clean shaven?

Then perhaps the barbarians who converted to Christianity painted Jesus with a beard, because they had beards?

(That is just a guess)

God (and Jesus) are indeed created in our image.

Why don't the LDS artists give Jesus a good clean shave, instead of that short trimmed beard?

I agree with you partly. Most early Christian converts were not Jewish. But, it's an historical fact that first century (pious) Jewish men wore beards. As soon as an artist came along who cared about history, Jesus was painted with a beard. I don't think the barbarians had anything to do with it. :)