Surprising quote in the Ensign about long hair.

[riverogue]

I'm tired of hearing some LDS people saying men with long hair is shameful. Here is a quote by David S. King,

"Church leaders, recognizing that fashions go in cycles, are sensitive to the rich cultural diversity within the Church. For example, they have recently held that clean, neatly trimmed and managed beards and long hair for men—as well as certain other fashions that to some might seem “trendy”—are acceptable for the temple, provided they are not inherently offensive or vulgar" (Feb 1993 Ensign, p29).

If it is considered acceptable in the Holy Temple, then why not at church or anywhere else for that matter.

The churches public stance against long hair began during the Hippie Revolution. Although long hair was recognized as part of the hippie's drug and free love culture. As a result BYU made the rule against long hair and beards, Elder Oaks said,

"In the minds of most people at this time, the beard and long hair are associated with protest, revolution, and rebellion against authority. They are also symbols of the hippie and drug culture. Persons who wear beards or long hair, whether they desire it or not, may identify themselves with or emulate and honor the drug culture or the extreme practices of those who have made slovenly appearance a badge of protest and dissent. In addition, unkemptness—which is often (though not always) associated with beards and long hair—is a mark of indifference toward the best in life" (New Era, Dec 1971 p 46).

The thing is, this was directed only to BYU students, but it has been quoted and summarized repeatedly while being directed toward all men in the church. If this does apply to all in the church than perhaps a rule ageanst women wearing any bottoms excepting slacks and dresses should apply to all women. Elder Oaks had this to say about womens attire, in the same talk,

"The inclusion of pant suits authorizes a style of dress that is clearly modest, however unfeminine some may think it to be. Standing by itself, the word slacks refers to a wide spectrum of attire covering the extremes between the dressy component of the pant suit on the one hand on down to the grubbiest trousers only suitable to slop the pigs. The authorization of slacks for general wear on this campus was meant to signify the kind of slacks that are as dressy as one portion of the pant suit. This new addition to the dress standards does not authorize the wearing of jeans, men’s trousers, or other slacks from the grubby end of the spectrum. Nor should it be understood to authorize the wearing of tee shirts, sweatshirts, or other such attire. These two modifications must not be the occasion for a general deterioration of women’s dress standards on this campus".

Perhaps the women in the church should stop being grubby, looking like the "slop" of "pigs" by no longer wearing jeans, t-shirts, and sweatshirts. But of coarse I relize that the culture has changed since then. A strong recomendation such as this would seem sexist by most women of todays culture. In regards to the priesthood holders Hair. Long hair has also become a manly style among the handsome and trendy, the fine artists, the sophisticated, and the educated.

I really feel like it is time that many members of the church recognize this and lay off on men such as myself who have long hair and are also handsome, trendy and worthy individuals.

[Moksha]

I really feel like it is time that many members of the church recognize this and lay off on men such as myself who have long hair and are also handsome, trendy and worthy individuals.

That sounds remarkably like myself except for the long hair, handsome and trendy parts. The worthiness part is like constantly treading water, is it not?

Just be the best you and the rest will fall into place. :)

[JasonK]

What an amazing argument. As a teenager and young adult, my hair was grown to my waist. However, the best I could ever come up with was "Jesus had long hair". I do remember snide, under the breath remarks from other members towards me, but I didn't care. I went to church and studied for my own purposes. Now my hair is short. But only because I don't look handsome and trendy anymore with the hair. I look more slovenly with the onset of age!

[Hemidakota]

I'm tired of hearing some LDS people saying men with long hair is shameful. Here is a quote by David S. King,

"Church leaders, recognizing that fashions go in cycles, are sensitive to the rich cultural diversity within the Church. For example, they have recently held that clean, neatly trimmed and managed beards and long hair for men—as well as certain other fashions that to some might seem “trendy”—are acceptable for the temple, provided they are not inherently offensive or vulgar" (Feb 1993 Ensign, p29).

If it is considered acceptable in the Holy Temple, then why not at church or anywhere else for that matter.

If this was the case, look at any photo of the brethren, what do you see? I ditto Moksha comments concerning being concerned over such petty issues. Just follow the brethren and do what they do best.

President Hinckley stated: “Modesty in dress and manner will assist in protecting against temptation. It may be difficult to find modest clothing, but it can be found with enough effort. … You can be attractive without being immodest. … Draw some rigid parameters, a line in the sand, as it were, beyond which you will not go.” President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Stay on the High Road,” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, p.114

Strive to the best you can and do it well.

[Flyonthewall]

I think the important part is to be neat and clean. If you keep your hair nicely combed, beard neatly trimmed there is no problem. Remember...cleanliness is next to godliness...

I have seen women who put a lot of time into their hair, only to look like they had driven down the freeway with their head out the window....leaves me scratching my head.

Neat and clean goes for everyone, not just guys with long hair and beards.

[rameumptom]

Yet, if you were to request to be a temple worker, the temple presidents would require you to cut your hair and if necessary, shave your beard. Same if you were called as a bishop, etc.

There are several levels of standards in the Church. They are basically stating to attend the temple does not require short hair on a man. That does not negate that there are still standards. It also does not change the standards for those working in the temple or in a higher calling in Church.

Besides, David King was president of the DC temple, not a General Authority. He was giving the lowest standard possible for someone asking a question. We each have to decide whether we will look like General Authorities, or be so over-focused on such issues that we miss the big issues. In the end, it comes up to what does the Lord want each of us to do? If God does not care, then it's okay. But I recommend you don't just assume that long hair is okay with God for anyone or everyone. God sets a standard that the Brethren live, and then answers on a case-by-case basis any exceptions to the rule. If you are not an exception to God's rule, then I hope you'll consider wearing your hair more like the GAs.

Edited July 29, 2010 by rameumptom

[mnn727]

I really feel like it is time that many members of the church recognize this and lay off on men such as myself who have long hair and are also handsome, trendy and worthy individuals.

Strange, there are a number of men with beards and long hair in my Stake and no one says anything about it. I've worn a mustache since I was old enough to grow one (and I'm 54 now) and in the 17 years since I joined the Church no one has ever said anything.

[Hemidakota]

Probally has do with your stake or ward. If here, Stake President would mentioned it offline.

[ryanh]

He was giving the lowest standard possible for someone asking a question.

That is a poignent comment right there. So, the question really is not whether is is "passable" or "acceptable", but do we personally want to meet simply the lowest standards, or strive for higher than that? I have this nagging feeling that Elder Oak's comments in regards to long hair symbolizing rebellion are still applicable today. I see the occasional man with long hair, but in the paradigm I have grown up with, that is outsitde of the societal norm. It feels (to me) like non-conformity. Not an attempt to look ones best, but to make a statement.

[Suzie]

"Church leaders, recognizing that fashions go in cycles, are sensitive to the rich cultural diversity within the Church. For example, they have recently held that clean, neatly trimmed and managed beards and long hair for men—as well as certain other fashions that to some might seem “trendy”—are acceptable for the temple, provided they are not inherently offensive or vulgar" (Feb 1993 Ensign, p29).

Hmmmm so is he implying that before men who had a beard or long hair were not able to attend the temple? (I am not referring as temple workers but just regular members attending a session).

Personally I think the long hair issue is silly. It's almost pharisaic to an extent when discussed by some members (Pharisees were always so overly concerned on appearance that missed the bigger issues).

I say to the OP, follow Jesus Christ's example, the only perfect man who ever lived on this Earth. Personally, I do not have to look at another man/woman to decide what I should dress or what hair style I should have. Do we really need to be guided in ALL things? Particularly in petty issues such as this? So do not worry about what others may think, worry about your heart, actions and intentions. :)

"Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? "

My two cents.

[hordak]

Who are you there to please?

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.

I wouldn't worry about it.

[crazypotato]

Sometimes when the leaders of the church say things that you think are stupid, that is your right, but I have faith that they know more about what they are talking about than I do.

Personally, I think women and men should be clean and neat. We are walking advertisements of the church, whether we like it or not. If there are people out there that look at me and I am always wearing t-shirts, jeans, sneakers, and I butch my hair and have no makeup (I am a woman), it is possible for me to look like a lesbian or a slob (sorry, it's true!). Look at how the missionaries are expected to dress. They have to look respectable before a lot of people will bother listening to them. You can't change the world, and people judge by appearances.

Also, this rule of short hair is so much easier to follow than like 10,000 of the other commandments.

[Wingnut]

If there are people out there that look at me and I am always wearing t-shirts, jeans, sneakers, and I butch my hair and have no makeup (I am a woman), it is possible for me to look like a lesbian...

Boy, that's not stereotyping, is it?

Also, this rule of short hair is so much easier to follow than like 10,000 of the other commandments.

Perhaps, but is it even a "rule," or just a suggestion?

[Tarnished]

I agree with the OP, my husband for example has a vandyke, a type of beard, he grows it because I like how it looks on him. He keeps it trimmed and neat, and I think he looks just fine. The insistance of short hair and no facial hair is due to social norms not to righteousness or not. Look at the pictures of many of the past prophets, Brigham Young for example would not be able to attend the college that is named after him without shaving and cutting his hair. And yet he was a prophet, he wore his hair and beard that way because it was a social norm of the day.

I can understand where the request for the college students came from, I can understand where the request for temple workers comes from, but if you are not in either of those situations and you are not in a calling where your physical appearance must be a certain way then why should you be judged by how you choose to grow your hair or trim your beard? As long as you look neat and clean why should it matter? Do we really need more things to judge others on? Or do we have to come across as a judgmental people who must judge others on how they look and dress.

It is much like the investigator I have heard of who was a biker and because he didn't have any "good" clothes he came to church in his biking leathers. And because of how he was dressed and the way he wore his hair and his beard the members treated him badly and he went away feeling that he did not want to be part of a church like that. Is that really what we want to become? A church who drives people away because of how they dress? Because of how they wear their hair?

Hair length and beard growth is not a commandment, it never has been. And judging someone based on it is silly and closed minded. People come from all walks of life, and they make choices based on what they know, each person is at a different place along the path and the best thing we can do is to help them along the way, not to drive them down because we don't think they are living as we think they should.

[crazypotato]

Boy, that's not stereotyping, is it?

That's my point. People judge us by how we look. Yes, it is a stereotype, just like long hair is.

Perhaps, but is it even a "rule," or just a suggestion?

It's a rule at BYU, it is a rule for missionaries, and for many priesthood callings.

[crazypotato]

I agree with the OP, my husband for example has a vandyke, a type of beard, he grows it because I like how it looks on him. He keeps it trimmed and neat, and I think he looks just fine. The insistance of short hair and no facial hair is due to social norms not to righteousness or not. Look at the pictures of many of the past prophets, Brigham Young for example would not be able to attend the college that is named after him without shaving and cutting his hair. And yet he was a prophet, he wore his hair and beard that way because it was a social norm of the day.

I can understand where the request for the college students came from, I can understand where the request for temple workers comes from, but if you are not in either of those situations and you are not in a calling where your physical appearance must be a certain way then why should you be judged by how you choose to grow your hair or trim your beard? As long as you look neat and clean why should it matter? Do we really need more things to judge others on? Or do we have to come across as a judgmental people who must judge others on how they look and dress.

It is much like the investigator I have heard of who was a biker and because he didn't have any "good" clothes he came to church in his biking leathers. And because of how he was dressed and the way he wore his hair and his beard the members treated him badly and he went away feeling that he did not want to be part of a church like that. Is that really what we want to become? A church who drives people away because of how they dress? Because of how they wear their hair?

Hair length and beard growth is not a commandment, it never has been. And judging someone based on it is silly and closed minded. People come from all walks of life, and they make choices based on what they know, each person is at a different place along the path and the best thing we can do is to help them along the way, not to drive them down because we don't think they are living as we think they should.

It's not that members are judging each other, it is that everyone in our communities watch Mormons and judge our appearances and our actions. The world is not fair and nonjudgemental. The world makes split second judgments based on our appearances. If our appearance is going to close the door to someone hearing about the gospel, then it is not worth it, is it?

[Dravin]

Perhaps, but is it even a "rule," or just a suggestion?

Come now Wing, what's next? Suggesting abstaining from caffeine isn't a commandment?

Elder Oaks explained fairly clearly that it is a cultural issue not a moral one, the culture is changing and so are the connotations the world attaches to things like men with maintained beards. I always wondered if say Afghanistan or other places where men are expect to wear beards by the culture magically opened up for Missionary work if missionaries might not only be allowed to wear beards but be required to do so.

Kinda like how in the States me walking around in a white shirt and jeans on my mission would be unacceptable but in some poor places in the world they are told to not wear suits but a nice pair of jeans as walking around in a suit would be perceived as flaunting wealth.

It's interesting that people talk about beards (Yep, I've got one) and longer hair (not an issue for me, see below) with the assumption that such folks are slovenly as if short hair and a clean shaven face makes that impossible (or that having the former makes one automatically slovenly). Personally I think the issue is simple, would you feel comfortable standing before the lord with your beard (or lack of it) or your current hair length?

I know I would.

look at any photo of the brethren, what do you see?

Nice to know my shorn head is acceptable.

[Wingnut]

It's a rule at BYU, it is a rule for missionaries, and for many priesthood callings.

Yes, it's also a rule at BYU-Idaho that you're not allowed to wear shorts. Does that mean that the general membership of the Church shouldn't wear shorts?

It's a rule for missionaries because they are the face of the Church. When missionaries have a uniform appearance, it's much easier for those they teach to focus on the teachings rather than on the person. They are also often first contact, so they are set to a higher standard. Temple workers are also currently asked to abide by missionary grooming standards. Part of this is to help them blend in, not distract from the importance of the ceremonies, and not draw attention to themselves instead.

It's not a rule for "many priesthood callings." Perhaps it is for General Authorities, but on a local level, I would argue that if a brother is asked to shave his goatee upon being called as Elders' Quorum President, that it's more than likely a cultural thing coming from local leadership, not a Church-wide guideline.

Most of the brethren who are in general leadership right now hail from a different era, when long hair or facial hair indicated sloppiness, laziness, sneakiness, or was worn by a general ne'er-do-well kind of person. That is all cultural, and has nothing to do with doctrine. Grooming standards in society have changed, and the Church has a greater presence in many more countries now as well, which all have different customs of their own.

[Carl62]

First off, just what is considered long hair? Half way down the ears, or half way down the back? Even half way down the ears will get you hauled into an office at BYU and reprimanded (I know, because it's happened to me:D). Also, what about different hair styles that are short? Are mohawks out? That's short hair. What about short hair that's dyed pink, or blue, or green? I wear my hair shoulder length and nobody seems to have any problems with me, especially since I'm in the capacity of being a teacher. As long as my family, my close friends and my girlfriend are all O.K. with it, then I could really give a rat's behind what anybody else happens to think. If people, whether they're members of the church or not, are going to judge me strictly on my appearance (which I consider very neat and well groomed) and not on the basis of how I treat them, then I really don't care to associate with them whatsoever. After all, why would anyone want to have superficial people as friends? I only hope that we're not all working to be just one big cookie cutter image of each other. If that's what conformity is, then you can have it.

[hordak]

Elder Oaks explained fairly clearly that it is a cultural issue not a moral one, the culture is changing and so are the connotations the world attaches to things like men with maintained beards. I always wondered if say Afghanistan or other places where men are expect to wear beards by the culture magically opened up for Missionary work if missionaries might not only be allowed to wear beards but be required to do so.

I don't know for sure, but have heard and seen pictures that missionary males in the places in the south pacific wear dresses. Known as lava lavas

[MarginOfError]

All should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. Always be neat

and clean and avoid being sloppy or inappropriately casual in dress, grooming, and manners. Ask yourself, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were

in the Lord’s presence?” (For the Strength of Youth pp 14-16)

This passage does a really good job of summarizing the principles behind the Church's policies on hair and facial hair.

Let's recall that the Church started moving toward clean shaven at a time when it was culturally expected of distinguished and influential men. It wasn't a doctrinal or spiritual issue. It was about image of the Church. Providing an appearance that would blend into society so that our message and our actions would speak louder than our appearance. It was actually a rather intelligent move that helped give mormons the reputation of professional, clean cut, repsectable, etc. All those traits that were affiliated with the image stereotype got attributed to mormons as well. Quite simply, it was good PR.

Some of it still applies to parts of what we do today. We encourage our young men to avoid extremes in hair style and clothing because we don't want their appearance to distract from the ordinances they officiate. With temple ordinance workers, we ask them to dress similarly and have as few distinguishing features as possible because they are supposed to be interchangeable. It is the ordinance that matters and nothing should distract from it.

Missionaries are in a similar situation, where their appearance should be such that people are willing to give them trust quickly, but not focus on the person so much as the message. Thus, a credible, professional image, again, with as few distinguishing features as possible.

Bishops and stake presidents have traditionally been asked to follow the same grooming standards. But, again, they are prominent local figures and representatives of the Church and are expected to maintain the Church's image.

Here's the thing though...the standard of professionalism has shifted some. It's no longer considered unprofessional to have facial hair. I work in a professional office and I have a goatee. I'm not the only person either. One of the physicians I collaborate with has a goatee. Some of the physicians here have full on beards. No one thinks anything of it.

I'm the clerk in my ward, and I have a goatee. The previous stake clerk had a goatee at times, and at other times he let the full beard grow. One of the ranking members on the high council here has a mustache. It isn't that uncommon.

If I were to be called into a bishopric (yep, there I go speculating again), I'd ask if I could keep my goatee. If I was told no, okay, fine, whatever. I don't care that much. But they can't say yes if I don't ask, right?

So, let's go back to this statement: Ask yourself, “Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?”

Yes, I would. In fact, I'd probably feel more comfortable with a goatee than I would without it. But I'm not going to fight to keep it. It just isn't that important.

[crazypotato]

Yes, it's also a rule at BYU-Idaho that you're not allowed to wear shorts. Does that mean that the general membership of the Church shouldn't wear shorts?

It's a rule for missionaries because they are the face of the Church. When missionaries have a uniform appearance, it's much easier for those they teach to focus on the teachings rather than on the person. They are also often first contact, so they are set to a higher standard. Temple workers are also currently asked to abide by missionary grooming standards. Part of this is to help them blend in, not distract from the importance of the ceremonies, and not draw attention to themselves instead.

It's not a rule for "many priesthood callings." Perhaps it is for General Authorities, but on a local level, I would argue that if a brother is asked to shave his goatee upon being called as Elders' Quorum President, that it's more than likely a cultural thing coming from local leadership, not a Church-wide guideline.

Most of the brethren who are in general leadership right now hail from a different era, when long hair or facial hair indicated sloppiness, laziness, sneakiness, or was worn by a general ne'er-do-well kind of person. That is all cultural, and has nothing to do with doctrine. Grooming standards in society have changed, and the Church has a greater presence in many more countries now as well, which all have different customs of their own.

I never said it was doctrine. It is a rule in my ward, for example, that the deacons have to have short hair and be wearing a white shirt and tie to pass the sacrament - no colored shirts. I agree absolutely with what Dravin is saying. These rules are cultural, and should be followed in order to look respectful in our culture. I think beards are now respectable and goatees are, too, as long as they are clean and trimmed. Longsih hair is okay, but not really, really long hair, because in US culture, that still has negative connotations. Every member is an example to the general population, so whether you are an actually missionary or not, I just think it is a good idea to look at your culture and dress on the more "culturally respectable" looking side.

My grandma told me that in St George, Utah, where she lived, the girls there avoided growing their hair really long because they didn't want to be associated with the polygamists. For those unfamiliar with St George, it is in the Southwestern tip of Utah near a lot of Polygamist communities where the women wear pioneer looking clothes, super long hair and no makeup. T

[Dravin]

I don't know for sure, but have heard and seen pictures that missionary males in the places in the south pacific wear dresses. Known as lava lavas

Heck, I live in Utah, just the other day I saw a Pacific Islander Missionary wearing a Lava lava.

[crazypotato]

First off, just what is considered long hair? Half way down the ears, or half way down the back? Even half way down the ears will get you hauled into an office at BYU and reprimanded (I know, because it's happened to me:D). Also, what about different hair styles that are short? Are mohawks out? That's short hair. What about short hair that's dyed pink, or blue, or green? I wear my hair shoulder length and nobody seems to have any problems with me, especially since I'm in the capacity of being a teacher. As long as my family, my close friends and my girlfriend are all O.K. with it, then I could really give a rat's behind what anybody else happens to think. If people, whether they're members of the church or not, are going to judge me strictly on my appearance (which I consider very neat and well groomed) and not on the basis of how I treat them, then I really don't care to associate with them whatsoever. After all, why would anyone want to have superficial people as friends? I only hope that we're not all working to be just one big cookie cutter image of each other. If that's what conformity is, then you can have it.

Dude, you don't have to be a cookie cutter or look like a nerd. I think it is a "young" way of looking at the world to think that no one should judge you on your appearance. Although it is pretty much true that people shouldn't, and that your hairstyle is not a big deal, people still do judge you. I think you should care, personally, because you are a member missionary, and an example to the world.

[Wingnut]

First off, just what is considered long hair? Half way down the ears, or half way down the back? Even half way down the ears will get you hauled into an office at BYU and reprimanded (I know, because it's happened to me:D). Also, what about different hair styles that are short? Are mohawks out? That's short hair. What about short hair that's dyed pink, or blue, or green? I wear my hair shoulder length and nobody seems to have any problems with me, especially since I'm in the capacity of being a teacher. As long as my family, my close friends and my girlfriend are all O.K. with it, then I could really give a rat's behind what anybody else happens to think. If people, whether they're members of the church or not, are going to judge me strictly on my appearance (which I consider very neat and well groomed) and not on the basis of how I treat them, then I really don't care to associate with them whatsoever. After all, why would anyone want to have superficial people as friends? I only hope that we're not all working to be just one big cookie cutter image of each other. If that's what conformity is, then you can have it.

I had a mission companion who came from a family where she and several of her siblings were somewhat hippy-ish. In the mission, she would regularly go a week or two at a time without shaving either her legs or her armpits (she didn't have bad B.O.). She once told me a story about one of her older brothers. He wore his hair long, but always well-groomed and pulled back in a ponytail, never scraggly. He also had a full beard. It was just how he was comfortable. The bishop extended a calling to him (I think as a teacher, not a "leadership" calling), but told him that he had to shave and cut his hair first. My companion's brother didn't do it. He felt that he was most comfortable as he was, and he kept his beard trimmed and his hair groomed. He was never given a calling as long as that bishop presided over the ward, despite worthiness and perhaps even qualification to receive a number of callings.

I don't know for sure, but have heard and seen pictures that missionary males in the places in the south pacific wear dresses. Known as lava lavas

I was thinking that when I talked about the Church being in many nations now, and each having their own customs. I was thinking exactly of men wearing "dresses" in Polynesia.