Mohawk and sacrament?

[Gwen]

I understand the importance of the bishop's opinion here but aren't we forgetting..... ask your parents first and what they think of the haircut. Do they think it's fine for passing? This is a family decision. If after the decision is made the bishop disagrees then the family can sit down and discuss it with him.

[JohnnyRudick]

Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?

I have a guess that Christ would understand the heart of a kid with a mohawk...but I could be wrong.

As I read through these postings I feel that Hair style is the least of this teens problems.

He repeatedly states that he is 15 as if that is some kind of license.

If he is indeed 15 years old he is 3 long years from being considered emancipated from being under his parents responsibility.

3 long years to grow away from his crutch of being only 15yo.

I am trying to look back to when I was 15.

How did I take the advice of older men.

Did I take it with the distrust and paranoia that this young man exhibits?

Or did I relish it and use it as some kind of secret esoteric gift for my benefit?

I wish I had don the latter more.

[jayanna]

the fauxhawk is not extreme in any way...nothing to worry about

to be honest, when I am taking sacrament I'm so busy with my issues that the Priesthood could have blue hair and I wouldn't notice.

but the fauxhawk, if you look at the pictures, is pretty tame really. Actually, I wouldn't mind if a missionary had one. I've given several missionaries haircuts, and I tend to make them shorter on the back and the sides, and a bit longer on top and toward the front. I wonder if I have ever inadvertently given them a cut that is not appropriate.

But I do have to say on a side note, I don't get the white shirt thing. There are a lot of men in my ward who wear colored dress shirts to church on Sunday, and they are in ward leadership, so I don't really get looking down on them for wearing a color. My hubby has never worn a colored dress shirt to church, maybe it's because I'm a sister and that issue doesn't really concern me, but the symbolism is for the sacrament, right? Not for general people attending and not planning to pass the sacrament I mean? And the bishopric wear white shirts and jackets, but otherwise, I don't think anything is specified for attendees? What about conference, where no sacrament is passed? I should probably start my own thread about that.

I don't know, as long as people are modest I don't care what they wear, in some cultures what I wear on a daily basis is extreme, so I would rather not treat others differently because of their apparel or appearance as long as they are modest. I just feel awkward around people who are showing off their underwear, or lack thereof.

In short, Cut your hair however you want, thank you for passing the sacrament :)

[skalenfehl]

Hey KID, just saw the pics and didn't see any mohawks. I've seen some hawks in my time that made me do double and triple takes. Some long and colorful ones too. Your pictures actually conjured up images of young men serving in our military. In any case, years ago, the bowl cut was all the rage here in Utah with boys sporting them like the latest and greatest fashion. I'm not going to judge you. You wear your style and pay attention to the Spirit and your feelings while you're representing the Lord in passing out the sacrament, assuming your Bishop has no objections. You will know if the Lord minds. I can think of far worse things a 15 year old can be doing instead of attending sacrament meeting on Sundays. Best wishes.

[xLandonx]

Some thoughts from someone who passed the Sacrement with a mohawk:

While having a respectful and clean appearance is obviously a necessity, hair is ultimately trivial.

When I was the same age I had a mohawk, not that toned down buzz cut fom the pics, this style was legit. However, when I went to church (for the sake of others, I really didn't see a problem myself) I kept it down and combed. As far as has been made known to me it's never caused any kind of issues with any of the members. But then again, I was always kind of the 'weird kid', so perhaps people were just used to me doing what I was going to do .

Now, as for my personal thoughts. As I stated before, hair is trivial. We are going to be judged by our actions and our hearts, not the fuzzy stuff growing from the northern most point of our epidermis. Anyone who finds their ability to feel the Spirit impaired because of a hairstyle choice would be better served looking inside themselves and not the deacon/teachers/priests head, as they have some preconceived notion that has disabled their critical thinking skills and left them unable to opinionate based on a members true character. The previous statement seems a bit harsh, but when it comes down to it, the person who is uncomfortable with a kid, who by the very fact that he is passing the sacrement has displayed he is of worthy and good character, is going to be the same person who is uncomfortable around potential converts that don't fit this individuals cooky-cutter image of what they find appropriate. Their disdain is what drives the Spirit away, not somebodies hair cut. I can imagine these attitudes are often antithetical to the fellowshipping and potential conversion of many individuals. For example, how often have we heard a variance of "I like The Church, but some of the people there make me feel unwelcome."?

Now, the potential POSITIVES of a member having a mohawk. What does it say to the youth of The Church? Some might hold the philosophy that it sets a bad example, I personally beleive the opposite to be true. Teenagers are going to rebel. That statement is correct much more often than it is not. What message does a preisthood holder, with a haircut that is synonymous with rebellion send to our youth. The cut teaches them that it's ok to rebel a little bit. It's OK to individualize and explore unconventional thought. However, in combination with performing sacred ordinances it teaches that while a little bit of rebellion is ok, one should remain steadfast in their faith and duty to God. I beleive it sends a message that one can practice a bit of (trivial) non-conformity AND remain diligent in their service.

This is my two-cents, some may find it more valuable than others haha.

Edited August 28, 2011 by xLandonx

[HappyNIL]

Not to me, but maybe your bishop might. There are some who in might consider that extreme for AP to serve sacrament. It's all subjective by spirit.

From Strength of Youth that YM/YW should be going by.

Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Immodest clothing includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire. Young women should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low-cut in the front or the back or revealing in any other manner. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance. 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?”

https://lds.org/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth-fulfilling-our-duty-to-god/dress-and-appearance?lang=eng

I just did this last week in Primary Sharing Time. Would you feel comfortable with this hair style while standing next to Jesus Christ? Young men are encouraged to wear their clothing and their hairstyles as if they were already missionaries. Just my thoughts on the topic, it is up to you and your bishop, perhaps an interview with him can help you make the right decision.

[Snow]

If you truly understand how wonderfully sacred the Sacrament is, and what a privilege it is to participate in administering it, this would not even be a question.

Think about that for a moment.... that someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it.

Nonsensical!

If odd hairstyles were an indication of one's understanding of the sacrament we'd have to conclude that many in the Church didn't understand the it:

Apostle Orson Pratt

Girls in Utah

President Lorenzo Snow

Jesus

On the other hand, maybe the poster was justing trying to say something outrageous to provoke discussion - in which case I guess the joke is on me.

[Vort]

If you truly understand how wonderfully sacred the Sacrament is, and what a privilege it is to participate in administering it, this would not even be a question.

Think about that for a moment.... that someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it.

Nonsensical!

Yes, but also incorrect. slamjet did not suggest that "someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it." Rather, slamjet said that to anyone who understands the sacred privilege of sacrament participation, such questions would not even rate to be asked.

It's like being told to put on new underwear before entering God's presence and complaining, "But why must I put on new underwear? I just put on new underwear yesterday! They're still clean! Why isn't my underwear good enough? Am I to believe that God discriminates against tighty whiteys?"

[skippy740]

Jesus Walked Joke

A teenage boy had just gotten his driver's license and inquired of his father as to when they could discuss his use of the car. His father said he'd make a deal with his son: 'You bring your grades up from a C to a B average, study your Bible a little, and get your hair cut. Then we'll talk about the car.'

The boy thought about that for a moment, decided he'd settle for the offer, and they agreed on it.

After about six weeks his father said, 'Son, you've brought your grades up and I've observed that you have been studying your Bible, but I'm disappointed you haven't gotten your hair cut.'

The boy said, 'You know, Dad, I've been thinking about that, and I've noticed in my studies of the Bible that Samson had long hair, John the Baptist had long hair, Moses had long hair...and there's even strong evidence that Jesus had long hair.'

To this his father replied, 'Did you also notice they all walked everywhere they went?'

[Snow]

Yes, but also incorrect. slamjet did not suggest that "someone's understanding of the sacred nature of the sacrament is either determined by the ratio of the length on the top of their head to the length on the side, or that their understanding can be deduced by it." Rather, slamjet said that to anyone who understands the sacred privilege of sacrament participation, such questions would not even rate to be asked.

It's like being told to put on new underwear before entering God's presence and complaining, "But why must I put on new underwear? I just put on new underwear yesterday! They're still clean! Why isn't my underwear good enough? Am I to believe that God discriminates against tighty whiteys?"

The poster's real point was that he understood the privilege of passing the sacrament but the poster considering a fun haircut did not... which is an absurd point without any basis in fact.

One's attire and hairstyle at Church is merely a matter of social convention, not understanding morality. If any of the Church's early prophets and apostles came to a service today in most wards, they would be barred from administering the sacrament, as would Jesus.

Besides, of much greater concern to the world's welfare are women's hairstyles in Utah. Something ought be done .

[Vort]

The poster's real point was that he understood the privilege of passing the sacrament but the poster considering a fun haircut did not... which is an absurd point without any basis in fact.

How would you know whether it has a basis in fact?

The OP said he was 15 years old. Few fifteen-year-olds have a mature understanding of the privilege of serving in God's kingdom, perhaps particularly those raised in the Church. It may or may not be true that the poster had in mind what you claim. If you are right about the poster's intent, then his claim itself may or may not be true. But it is not absurd.

One's attire and hairstyle at Church is merely a matter of social convention, not understanding morality.

Within the bounds of modesty and decency, attire and hairstyle at Church may indeed be "merely a matter of social convention". But that is entirely beside the point, as I think you well know.

If any of the Church's early prophets and apostles came to a service today in most wards, they would be barred from administering the sacrament, as would Jesus.

This is a blatant falsehood, of a kind with those spewed by antiMormons. I am surprised, perhaps even a bit shocked (naive me), to see you make such a ridiculous and false statement.

[skippy740]

[Snow]

This is a blatant falsehood, of a kind with those spewed by antiMormons. I am surprised, perhaps even a bit shocked (naive me), to see you make such a ridiculous and false statement.

Really?

Does your ward allow people in robes and sandals to administer the sacrament?

Mine doesn't. We have a rule about white shirts and ties.

Since you say my point is blatantly false, you must mean that they do allow it. I'd like to check. What ward do you live in?

[Vort]

Really?

Does your ward allow people in robes and sandals to administer the sacrament?

Mine doesn't. We have a rule about white shirts and ties.

Since you say my point is blatantly false, you must mean that they do allow it. I'd like to check. What ward do you live in?

Are you being intentionally untruthful, Snow, or just obtuse? Your statement:

If any of the Church's early prophets and apostles came to a service today in most wards, they would be barred from administering the sacrament, as would Jesus.

If any such authority came to Church, he very obviously would be given the utmost respect.

Or perhaps you're saying that if Thomas Monson put on a clown suit and a rubber nose and came to Church, the attending bishop would not recognize him and thus would not allow him to officiate? If this is your point, then perhaps you are right, but it's a stupid point.

[Snow]

Are you being intentionally untruthful, Snow, or just obtuse? Your statement:

If any such authority came to Church, he very obviously would be given the utmost respect.

Or perhaps you're saying that if Thomas Monson put on a clown suit and a rubber nose and came to Church, the attending bishop would not recognize him and thus would not allow him to officiate? If this is your point, then perhaps you are right, but it's a stupid point.

Calling people dishonest, obtuse or calling posts stupid is one way of trying to win an argument. Do you think it's working out well for you?

[skippy740]

Really?

Does your ward allow people in robes and sandals to administer the sacrament?

Mine doesn't. We have a rule about white shirts and ties.

Since you say my point is blatantly false, you must mean that they do allow it. I'd like to check. What ward do you live in?

Is that rule in the Church Handbook?

There's a difference between doctrine and culture. White shirts are part of LDS culture, but your priesthood is still valid if you wear a blue shirt.

[Snow]

Is that rule in the Church Handbook?

There's a difference between doctrine and culture. White shirts are part of LDS culture, but your priesthood is still valid if you wear a blue shirt.

Being a valid priesthood holder does not depend on what shirt you wear but my last 3 wards have all asked, and require white shirts, ties, dress shoes and the like to administer the sacrament. That's the rule. People in robes and such aren't allowed.

[Vort]

Calling people dishonest, obtuse or calling posts stupid is one way of trying to win an argument. Do you think it's working out well for you?

Snow, I don't get you. You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why? Your responses range from thoughtful to dishonest (or obtuse). The best I can figure is that it is extremely important to you to "win" each confrontation. Is there some other dynamic going on here?

To answer your question, it's not working out all that great for me. But I keep plugging along.

[skippy740]

Just to show that it's possible for me to agree with Snow:

Sacrament Meeting and the Sacrament - general-conference

How we dress is an important indicator of our attitude and preparation for any activity in which we will engage. If we are going swimming or hiking or playing on the beach, our clothing, including our footwear, will indicate this. The same should be true of how we dress when we are to participate in the ordinance of the sacrament. It is like going to the temple. Our manner of dress indicates the degree to which we understand and honor the ordinance in which we will participate.

What I said earlier about the importance of appropriate dress for those who receive the ordinance of the sacrament obviously applies with special force to the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood who officiate in any part of that sacred ordinance. All should be well-groomed and modestly dressed. There should be nothing about their personal appearance or actions that would call special attention to themselves or distract anyone present from full attention to the worship and covenant making that are the purpose of this sacred service.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland gave a valuable teaching on this subject in general conference 13 years ago. Since most of our current deacons were not even born when these words were last spoken here, I repeat them for their benefit and that of their parents and teachers: “May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions” (“This Do in Remembrance of Me,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 68).

[Guest mysticmorini]

You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight.

Hmmm... pot and kettel anyone?

[Guest mysticmorini]

You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why?

Do I hear a pot giving a kettle call?

[Bini]

Laugh out loud! It's not a "fauxhawk" it's a mockhawk!

I see nothing wrong with the hairdo as shown in the images posted. I don't think many people would even notice it. So yeh, indifferent as far as whether it's appropriate for sacrament meeting. I just don't think it's a big deal, at, all..

[Guest mysticmorini]

You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why?

Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

[Guest mysticmorini]

You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why?

Pot calling the Kettle Black?

Edited September 2, 2011 by mysticmorini

[Guest mysticmorini]

You are obviously an intelligent person, yet you seem determined to pick a fight. You seem to have much to offer, yet you get caught up in trying to show people how stupid they are. Why?

Irony?