Native American ( Indian ), Long Hair and Serving Mission

[comebackkid]

I have some young boys, both under 10 right now. They are both 1/2 Native American and their mother and I hold to many native traditions including long hair.

I know that my kids are taught they will have short, almost army like, hair cuts. Does this also hold true for Native American Indians that serve missions?

[Prodigal_Son]

I assume so. Folks in the field are to see clean cut missionary boys. Doesn't matter your background. They're messengers from God out there before they're Native Americans.

[Mahone]

I know that my kids are taught they will have short, almost army like, hair cuts. Does this also hold true for Native American Indians that serve missions?

Yes, there is very little personalization when it comes to mission rules. This is kind of understandable. The rules cannot apply to one person but not another, otherwise it causes contention.

[Misshalfway]

Would it bother you if they were asked to cut their hair? What kinds of issues would it create for you?

[yotoman]

Well, there are Indian missionaries with long hair. One of my friends had to cut his hair and then he got a companion down in Equador that had long hair! hahahahahaha! The church respects cultures, but if they don't have a problem with cutting it then I suppose they should.

Sometimes the churches dress code bothers me. Thus why I don't care for BYU. Too many people and too many little rules make it ridiculous. I mean, Brigham Young would not even be able to take classes at his own university! lol

*Awaits BYU lovers to squash his apostate ideas*

I support strong dress codes for missionaries though!

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Edited December 6, 2009 by yotoman

[pam]

I can kind of understand where the OP is coming from. I watched a documentary not long ago concerning this. In many Native American cultures hair was a sign of their spirit. The longer the hair the stronger their spirit.

So if this is where the OP's thoughts lie, let's be mindful of the traditions and culture and not be judgmental. I think it's a valid question.

Edited December 6, 2009 by pam

[pam]

Well, there are Indian missionaries with long hair. One of my friends had to cut his hair and then he got a companion down in Equador that had long hair! hahahahahaha! The church respects cultures, but if they don't have a problem with cutting it then I suppose they should.

Sometimes the churches dress code bothers me. Thus why I don't care for BYU. Too many people and too many little rules make it ridiculous. I mean, Brigham Young would not even be able to take classes at his own university! lol

*Awaits BYU lovers to squash his apostate ideas*

I support strong dress codes for missionaries though!

AHAHAHAHAHA!

Then again this thread isn't about BYU now is it?

[annamaureen]

Sometimes the churches dress code bothers me. Thus why I don't care for BYU. Too many people and too many little rules make it ridiculous. I mean, Brigham Young would not even be able to take classes at his own university!

Haha, I never thought of that!

[Dravin]

Haha, I never thought of that!

Generally I hear the comment directed at the Savior, his beard and longer hair being considered against dress code, not to mention his dress (aka robe) and sandals (don't know if this one is still the case, but IIRC it used to be).

Edit: To actually address the OP. Chances are pretty good they're have to cut their hair but they can grow it back. I know there isn't a cultural attachment to my goatee but I made the sacrifice of shaving it off so I can serve a mission and grew it back after I got home. One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of the dress code is for Missionaries to look clean cut and respectable to the culture they are serving, in quite a few culture long hair does not meet that standard.

I have always wondered though that in some countries having a beard is considered respectable and gives one a built in ethos that shaving doesn't (the opposite of American culture at large), would they allow missionaries in those missions to grow beards?

P.S. Pam's thanks is/was directed at the first sentence of my post, don't want to misrepresent her thanks by adding to my post and making people think she's agreeing to something she might not be.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Dravin

[hordak]

I can kind of understand where the OP is coming from. I watched a documentary not long ago concerning this. In many Native American cultures hair was a sign of their spirit. The longer the hair the stronger their spirit.

So if this is where the OP's thoughts lie, let's be mindful of the traditions and culture and not be judgmental. I think it's a valid question.

But doesn't that stem from religious belief, in which case it would be a mute point?

[pam]

Could you explain more Hordak in how it would be a moot point? Because to them it could be a religious belief and therefore a very valid question.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm just wanting clarification to make sure I understand what you are saying.

[pam]

I would like to know more about what the OP had in mind. It could be something totally different than what I had in mind. haha

[Dravin]

I think Hordak's line of thought was:

If some Native Americans in the following of their traditional animalistic/naturalistic beliefs feel their hair is a sign of their spirit why does it matter to somebody following LDS belief, of which hair being a sign of spirit is not doctrine.

Did I read you correctly Hordak?

P.S. This interpretation is neither an attack nor an endorsement of the interpreted position.

Edited December 6, 2009 by Dravin

[pam]

I don't mean to be argumentative in this I really don't. I think it's because the question was posed...why would you have issues with this?

If, in fact, the person had in mind what I posed as a possibility, I can see why there would be issues. Traditions run deep. Whether it's doctrine or not bears no relevance in my opinion. But it's hard to break away from traditions, especially when the tradition has no bearing on their ability to serve and to be upstanding members in the LDS faith.

[pam]

Again we are debating this or I am (only because of a question asked) when we don't even know why this is of importance to the OP.

[hordak]

I think Hordak's line of thought was:

If some Native Americans in the following of their traditional animalistic/naturalistic beliefs feel their hair is a sign of their spirit why does it matter to somebody following LDS belief, of which hair being a sign of spirit is not doctrine.

Did I read you correctly Hordak?

P.S. This interpretation is neither an attack nor an endorsement of the interpreted position.

Bingo.A women raised raise in a Muslim community/ culture might be comfortable and culturally prone to wear a hair covering in public, but since this is a religious based custom, one not shared with the LDS there would be no reason to exempt a LDS missionary from the standard.

[pam]

Nor am I saying they would be exempt. My issue is with the posing of the question "Why would you have issues with it."

[hordak]

I don't mean to be argumentative in this I really don't. I think it's because the question was posed...why would you have issues with this?

If, in fact, the person had in mind what I posed as a possibility, I can see why there would be issues. Traditions run deep. Whether it's doctrine or not bears no relevance in my opinion. But it's hard to break away from traditions, especially when the tradition has no bearing on their ability to serve and to be upstanding members in the LDS faith.

I agree 100%.If you look at my past post I'm allways fighting for "who cares how you dress on Sunday", "tattoos are the same as plastic surgery" "beards and shirt color are not an indication of worthiness"

My favorite biblical verse is 1 Samuel 16:7

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

You will not find a poster less "Orthodox" on the subject of appearance then me. However in this situation the missionary is not only representing himself as a servant of lord, but as a member of the church.

[hordak]

Nor am I saying they would be exempt. My issue is with the posing of the question "Why would you have issues with it."

I wouldn't. Hoverer if it is a religious custom then it doesn't matter there's no reason to keep it. If it is just a ethnic/ cultural custom it doesn't matter theirs no reason to keep it.

Women in pants is an America cultural norn but I don't think sister missionaries are allowed to keep it.?

[pam]

I wouldn't. Hoverer if it is a religious custom then it doesn't matter there's no reason to keep it. If it is just a ethnic/ cultural custom it doesn't matter theirs no reason to keep it.

Women in pants is an America cultural norn but I don't think sister missionaries are allowed to keep it.?

Okay perhaps YOU wouldn't...but someone else might. Therefore I still argue that it's a valid question.

[hordak]

Okay perhaps YOU wouldn't...but someone else might. Therefore I still argue that it's a valid question.

I'm not saying it's an invalid question. But if it's a religious custom, not shared by our religion there would be no reason to keep it.

Perhaps i used moot in the wrong context. Where is beefchi when you need her :)

[pam]

No you used moot correctly. Wait..are you saying only Beefche would know if a word was used in the correct context?

[Vort]

Thus why I don't care for BYU. Too many people and too many little rules make it ridiculous.

I went to BYU. It was the most amazing time of my life to that point. The rules do not make BYU "ridiculous". They help it to stay the amazing place it is.

Anyone who thinks BYU is "ridiculous" should stay far away from it, so that people who value it (such as my children) can more easily attend.

I mean, Brigham Young would not even be able to take classes at his own university! lol

I have never understood this line of reasoning, though it's popular among BYU haters.

Do you seriously believe that Brigham Young would not be allowed to take classes or do anything else he wanted to at BYU?

*Awaits BYU lovers to squash his apostate ideas*

On the contrary, you are welcome to your ideas, apostate or otherwise. Please feel perfectly free to stay far, far away from BYU. I'm not offended in the least. But if you are going to criticize, your criticisms should be based in truth, not in absurdity like "BYU would not allow Brigham Young to attend".

[Gwen]

i would imagine there is an opportunity on the mission application to comment about the long hair and what it means to them. they may be sent to a country where it's appropriate for the missionaries to have long hair. just as there are missions where the men where skirts (sorry, no offense intended by calling them skirts, don't know the name).

in the end if they are not able to accommodate the custom i would say cutting the hair is a small sacrifice and outweighs the benefits of serving a mission. you could turn it into a neat experience for them, if they keep it long and healthy enough now then they can donate it to locks of love before they leave.

[hordak]

i would imagine there is an opportunity on the mission application to comment about the long hair and what it means to them. they may be sent to a country where it's appropriate for the missionaries to have long hair. just as there are missions where the men where skirts (sorry, no offense intended by calling them skirts, don't know the name).

Are you referring to Kilts? As far as i know kilts are like tuxedos today. Really only worn for extra special occasions.