Peter Santello starts a series of videos on the Mormons

[Grunt]

31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I actually got instruction some years ago that certain Church leaders should be clean shaven.  I believe that policy has dropped and is no longer suggested these days.

 

It wasn't dropped in my area as recently as last year in my area.  I really don't have any information outside that, nor do I fully understand how far that person's stewardship extends.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Grunt

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

personally would favor more of a Wilford Woodruff style

I tried the beard no mustache look and I thought I looked Amish. 

[NeuroTypical]

My ward has been given the nickname "Most bearded ward in the stake", in two different stakes after a realignment.  Once our bishopric had a beard growing contest (which was hilarious, because the bishop was still baby-bottom fresh except for three hairs a month later, and both his counselors looked like Grizzly Adams within a week.)

It's interesting: You go to the church website and search for "clean shaven".  One of the results is "Section 7 - Bishopric".   But you go there, and the words clean, shaven, or beard, do not appear anywhere in that chapter. 

I'm thinking the church is happy to evolve cultural norms to a certain extent.  What all the members think of as neat and modest and respectful and reverent changes over time, because we're humans living in human culture.  

Evidence:

 

It'll probably be a few decades before we see another Joseph F. Smith-esque bearded prophet, or it could change next year.  

[LDSGator]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It'll probably be a few decades before we see another Joseph F. Smith-esque bearded prophet, or it could change next year.  

Back in their day (Joesph F Smith) I think most men wore a beard. 
 

@Just_A_Guy, you were around back then. Any truth to that? 😜 

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

I'm thinking the church is happy to evolve cultural norms to a certain extent.  What all the members think of as neat and modest and respectful and reverent changes over time, because we're humans living in human culture.  

 

I think this is where it likely rests and I even remember reading something written decades ago when I started my "why" research, after we were asked to shave, that mentioned current culture and negative associations with facial hair. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Grunt

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Back in their day (Joesph F Smith) I think most men wore a beard. 
 

@Just_A_Guy, you were around back then. Any truth to that? 😜 

The men’s beards were nuthin’.  You should have seen the women’s beards.  

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The men’s beards were nuthin’.  You should have seen the women’s beards.  

Leave @mirkwood out of this please. 

[NeuroTypical]

Here is Peter Santello's second video: "Invited to Mormon Dinner".  An hour long - I haven't watched it yet.

 

[LeKillerWallaby]

So I'll start by saying that I'm not a member but have been lurking off and on for a long time.

 Grunt's defense on the beard issue really resonated with me and reminded me how the Coast Guard dealt with having beards (or not).

In 1986 the Coast Guard forbid beards, the rumor was that it was due to the new Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Yost (who BTW was a member). Though the US Navy had just instituted a ban in 1985 and we tend to follow the Navy on these things.

Essentially leadership said if you want to be in the Coast Guard with all its benefits (implicit and explicit) you need to shave your beard. Some folks did get out, some folks sent their beards into HQ, and some folks figured that it was more important to stay in the Coast Guard than their beard.

I think prioritization is the key here. Is finding the one true church a priority for you? If that church mandates you abstaining from alcohol and coffee/hot drinks is that a deal breaker or possibly shaving one's beard(note that I am not there yet :))?  Being in leadership is a completely different story of norms and benefits.

Anyway my point being that Grunt's defense of the beard prohibition is very much baked into the military services and their cultures. Which often contrasts with the culture of personal freedom and (maybe?) personal revelation.  

 

[zil2]

Welcome, @LeKillerWallaby!   I look forward to hearing more from you.

[Carborendum]

15 hours ago, LeKillerWallaby said:

So I'll start by saying that I'm not a member but have been lurking off and on for a long time.

 

Welcome.

15 hours ago, LeKillerWallaby said:

...Which often contrasts with the culture of personal freedom and (maybe?) personal revelation.  

I tend to believe that this is perhaps an age old discussion.  What does freedom mean?  And where do beards (and Word of Wisdom, etc.) come into that discussion?

There is a difference between freedom and license.  Freedom simply means that you have the power to choose a path forward.  But every choice has consequences, both natural and artificial. 

• Natural:  If I speed on the roadway, I am more prone to getting into an accident (especially in heavier traffic).
• Artificial: If I speed on the freeway, A cop could pull me over and give me a ticket.

(Also note: just because it is artificial, doesn't necessarily make it unjust.  That's a completely different argument.)

License, OTOH, simply means that there will be no consequences for any choice I make.  But license is a double-edged sword.  The actual goal of those seeking license is to have all the good stuff, without the bad.  That ain't going to happen.

If you TRULY have NO consequences from a particular choice, then your choice has had absolutely no effect.  So, along with the lack of punishment, there is also a complete lack of reward.  We do not really live in such a world where any act has zero consequences (good or bad).  This principle is ONE of the basic principles behind the phrase: "To act, and not be acted upon."

What about beards?  WoW? etc.?

First we need to differentiate "standards" (like the wearing of beards) vs "covenants" like the Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc.

We do not make a covenant to remain clean shaven.  It is a standard that many in leadership tend to submit to.  And Grunt has done a good job of expressing such a sentiment.  There are purposes for it.  And if we submit to the standard, there is hopefully a good consequence that will result.  If we do not, then there will be a different consequence.  It is really just about the consequences.  It is not moral or immoral.  It's a measure put in place to hopefully provide a good result.

Covenants are more than simply "do this, and you'll receive a reward."  It is about some higher principle.  And, while some of these things can change slightly throughout the years and dispensations, there is a higher principle at play.  While consequences are involved, the higher principle is about catching the vision of what is right and wrong, or what is God's will or not.

The idea of a higher principle is what makes a behavior a religion.  True, even atheists believe in a higher principle.  And they are loathe to call it a "religious principle."  But looking at it from a human nature perspective, we don't really have a better way to describe it.  People are willing to dedicate their time, talents, and means toward a particular ideal.  That makes it a religious principle to that person.

I could steal from people and get away with it.  That would certainly enlarge my bank account.  But I don't because I simply know it's wrong.  It's the difference between believing that "it always catches up to you" vs. "I just couldn't live with myself if I did that."

And if you get to that level with all of God's commandments, then you've gotten to having your calling and election made sure.  You're no longer afraid of external consequences.  But your own inner light (the Gift of the Holy Ghost) is guiding you to right and wrong.  So, you are doing what you truly want to do.  And it is in line with God's will.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

13 hours ago, LeKillerWallaby said:

So I'll start by saying that I'm not a member but have been lurking off and on for a long time.

 Grunt's defense on the beard issue really resonated with me and reminded me how the Coast Guard dealt with having beards (or not).

In 1986 the Coast Guard forbid beards, the rumor was that it was due to the new Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Yost (who BTW was a member). Though the US Navy had just instituted a ban in 1985 and we tend to follow the Navy on these things.

Essentially leadership said if you want to be in the Coast Guard with all its benefits (implicit and explicit) you need to shave your beard. Some folks did get out, some folks sent their beards into HQ, and some folks figured that it was more important to stay in the Coast Guard than their beard.

I think prioritization is the key here. Is finding the one true church a priority for you? If that church mandates you abstaining from alcohol and coffee/hot drinks is that a deal breaker or possibly shaving one's beard(note that I am not there yet :))?  Being in leadership is a completely different story of norms and benefits.

Anyway my point being that Grunt's defense of the beard prohibition is very much baked into the military services and their cultures. Which often contrasts with the culture of personal freedom and (maybe?) personal revelation.  

 

Welcome to the forums, and thank you for your service to the country. I never served but I feel the Coast Guard is like our “forgotten” armed forces. 

[estradling75]

20 hours ago, LeKillerWallaby said:

So I'll start by saying that I'm not a member but have been lurking off and on for a long time.

 Grunt's defense on the beard issue really resonated with me and reminded me how the Coast Guard dealt with having beards (or not).

In 1986 the Coast Guard forbid beards, the rumor was that it was due to the new Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Yost (who BTW was a member). Though the US Navy had just instituted a ban in 1985 and we tend to follow the Navy on these things.

Essentially leadership said if you want to be in the Coast Guard with all its benefits (implicit and explicit) you need to shave your beard. Some folks did get out, some folks sent their beards into HQ, and some folks figured that it was more important to stay in the Coast Guard than their beard.

I think prioritization is the key here. Is finding the one true church a priority for you? If that church mandates you abstaining from alcohol and coffee/hot drinks is that a deal breaker or possibly shaving one's beard(note that I am not there yet :))?  Being in leadership is a completely different story of norms and benefits.

Anyway my point being that Grunt's defense of the beard prohibition is very much baked into the military services and their cultures. Which often contrasts with the culture of personal freedom and (maybe?) personal revelation.  

 

Welcome to the forums... 

Since you brought up the military lets use that as an example...  In the military you have chains of command.  One is expected to follow orders that come from from the proper authorities and it is generally considered a bad idea to follow order that come from outside the chain of command that you are under.  This is part of how they stay organized and avoid confusion...  Kinda of important.

God's kingdom is lead by revelation which can come to any individual...  This would be highly chaotic but God has established his Chains of Command.  We call them stewardships.  Stewardship are what God has put you over.  One is entitled to revelation from God over ones stewardship.  Everyone has a stewardship over themselves.  But we often have more then one stewardship. If you are a parent you also have a stewardship over your family (with in the limits of being a parent).  If you have a calling you have a stewardship over that calling (with in the limits of that calling).  At the highest level we have leaders who have calling/stewardship over all the Church and world.

Thus I could be given instructions/directions from anyone that has a Stewardship over me who is acting within the bounds of that stewardship...  Just like how a superior officer can give orders in the military but how there are limits to what orders they can give.

On the subject of beards/facial hair currently that guidance is coming from limited stewardships.   If you are under one of those stewardship then you should.  If you are not then you are not in rebellion or disobeying for doing what you wish...  No matter how many times and in different ways someone else without stewardship might declare or imply it so.

 

 

 

 

[EH12NG]

I enjoyed the youtube video, refreshing to see a member of the church have a casual walk around town and talking about what we believe and stand for without some Calvinist sticking their ore in. Young lad gave a good account of the church and himself. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by EH12NG

[LDSGator]

The one thing I’ve got from this thread? If I ever go back to church I’m growing a beard down to my knees so no one will ask me to do any calling. 

 

😜 

[EH12NG]

44 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

The one thing I’ve got from this thread? If I ever go back to church I’m growing a beard down to my knees so no one will ask me to do any calling. 

 

😜

You don't attend church?

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, EH12NG said:

You don't attend church?

I met with local church leaders in the last few months to address certain things. That’s as close as I’ll go for now. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by LDSGator

[mordorbund]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:07 PM, LDSGator said:

On 11/27/2023 at 12:55 PM, NeuroTypical said:

My ward has been given the nickname "Most bearded ward in the stake", in two different stakes after a realignment.  Once our bishopric had a beard growing contest (which was hilarious, because the bishop was still baby-bottom fresh except for three hairs a month later, and both his counselors looked like Grizzly Adams within a week.)

It's interesting: You go to the church website and search for "clean shaven".  One of the results is "Section 7 - Bishopric".   But you go there, and the words clean, shaven, or beard, do not appear anywhere in that chapter. 

I'm thinking the church is happy to evolve cultural norms to a certain extent.  What all the members think of as neat and modest and respectful and reverent changes over time, because we're humans living in human culture.  

Evidence:

 

It'll probably be a few decades before we see another Joseph F. Smith-esque bearded prophet, or it could change next year.  

Back in their day (Joesph F Smith) I think most men wore a beard. 
 

@Just_A_Guy, you were around back then. Any truth to that? 😜 

Joseph Smith dies under clean-shaven #10 John Tyler. We've got pictures of chin-bald Brigham in his early tenure. The bearded Young dies between #18-19 tenure of bearded Grand and Hayes (note trend-setting Lincoln also a decade earlier). John Taylor is prophet while the mustachioed Arthur and Cleveland serve (perhaps the chin curtain was counter-culture?). Beards haven't fully gone out of vogue in Woodruff's time, as Harrison attests firmly sandwiched between Cleveland. Joseph F. Smith looks to be bearded in a time of transition, when the mustache was deemed a sufficient water-strainer (#26-#28, see Roosevelt and Taft). After Wilson facial hair looks to have fallen out of favor so only Heber J. Grant and George Albert Smith are men-out-of-time and you can see their mouth coifs are vastly different from previous prophets (except maybe Woodruff).

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Joseph Smith dies under clean-shaven #10 John Tyler. We've got pictures of chin-bald Brigham in his early tenure. The bearded Young dies between #18-19 tenure of bearded Grand and Hayes (note trend-setting Lincoln also a decade earlier). John Taylor is prophet while the mustachioed Arthur and Cleveland serve (perhaps the chin curtain was counter-culture?). Beards haven't fully gone out of vogue in Woodruff's time, as Harrison attests firmly sandwiched between Cleveland. Joseph F. Smith looks to be bearded in a time of transition, when the mustache was deemed a sufficient water-strainer (#26-#28, see Roosevelt and Taft). After Wilson facial hair looks to have fallen out of favor so only Heber J. Grant and George Albert Smith are men-out-of-time and you can see their mouth coifs are vastly different from previous prophets (except maybe Woodruff).

I wonder why beards went out of style after the Victorian era. 

[mirkwood]

21 hours ago, LDSGator said:

The one thing I’ve got from this thread? If I ever go back to church I’m growing a beard down to my knees so no one will ask me to do any calling. 

 

😜

 

Beards and colored shirts don't stop you from getting callings.

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Beards and colored shirts don't stop you from getting callings.

Oh, agree. It was just a joke.
 

They were going to call me for something to do with the EQ and no one said anything. I’ve also seen biker looking guys as bishops before.  

Edited November 30, 2023 by LDSGator