data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/47c64/47c64ca1beef426a3e0879e13126c1ebf9d25ca0" alt="Mormons - Shaven or Bearded? Mormons - Shaven or Bearded?"
To me, this is the reality of it: Nowdays, "extreme" hairstyles stand for something different. We have the proper tools to be well-trimmed, and the members of the church represent the church itself (especially missionaries and leaders). To the public, a clean appearence would stand for a clean way of living. If we can help it, we should. If we don't have the money to get a haircut, or if we don't have the tools, I don't think it is necessary (though other members would probably offer to cut it for them, which would leave them with not much of an option.) We represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and we shouldn't see ourselves as people who identify with the "world". It's a form of discipline, and a way to let down that wall of pride. After all, is it really "your body"? Edited: dbclayton on 29th Jul, 2006 - 12:47pm
This is an interesting topic to me. I am an active member of the Church. In the last 14 years I have been in a Branch Presidency 3 times, Young Men's President 3 times, Branch Mission Leader, Elder's Quorum President, taught early morning Seminary for 3 years, Gospel Doctrine Instructor, and am now the Executive Secretary in my Ward. I have held a temple recommend and attended the temple on many occasions.
During ALL of these callings I have had a beard. I keep it trimmed short, as well as my hair. It is not for rebellious reasons, but because I get in-grown hairs on my face that cause red bumps and are rather painful when I shave with a razor. The bumps make it difficult to shave. I don't know why, it's just always been that way.
Elder Bednar used to be my Stake President. He interviewed me for temple recommends and callings, set me apart in callings, and saw me many, many times in leadership meetings and such. He never once mentioned or asked about my beard. I don't even recall him ever looking at it. Trust me, if Elder (then President) Bednar thought something personal about you he would tell you in a loving manner. His motto is "one-by-one" and he certainly would have told me my beard was a problem if he felt it was. I have known no one in my life that even remotely understood Church guidelines and governance as much as he does. If beards were a problem he WOULD have told me.
In fact, I have known my wife for 15 years and she has never seen me without a beard.
However, the first time a Priesthood leader, ANY Priesthood leader, asks me to shave it off I will. Because one Bishop or Stake President does not ask you to shave does not mean the next one won't. I believe they are allowed to have preferences. If it is his preference, even if not doctrine on issues like this, I will gladly support and sustain him by shaving if he asks. I may mention the problem I have with in-grown hairs, but I will do it if he wants me to.
This is an interesting topic, though. I have enjoyed reading all your comments. Thank you.
Justice said:
QUOTE |
However, the first time a Priesthood leader, ANY Priesthood leader, asks me to shave it off I will. Because one Bishop or Stake President does not ask you to shave does not mean the next one won't. I believe they are allowed to have preferences. If it is his preference, even if not doctrine on issues like this, I will gladly support and sustain him by shaving if he asks |
Simply because there is evidence to suggest, and a fairly consistent example set by leaders, that having a beard might be frowned upon today. If they ALL wore pink ties and missionaries all had to wear pink ties, then there might be something to pink ties. As silly as that may sound, all the brethren wear white shirts and counsel us to do the same. It's not Church doctrine, I suppose. Some people do not feel they "must" wear a white shirt to Sacrament meeting. Some Bishop's will let people wearing blue shirts bless and pass the Sacrament, some will not. It is a preference.
If my Priesthood leader's preference is for me to wear a white shirt and shave, I have no reason not to (exept the in-grown hairs).
QUOTE |
Simply because there is evidence to suggest, and a fairly consistent example set by leaders, that having a beard might be frowned upon today. |
QUOTE |
If they ALL wore pink ties and missionaries all had to wear pink ties, then there might be something to pink ties. As silly as that may sound, all the brethren wear white shirts and counsel us to do the same. It's not Church doctrine, I suppose. Some people do not feel they "must" wear a white shirt to Sacrament meeting. Some Bishop's will let people wearing blue shirts bless and pass the Sacrament, some will not. It is a preference. |
QUOTE (LDS_forever @ 12-Sep 06, 1:13 PM) |
Good, then knowing that why do you have to wait for the leader to come to you and ask you to shave? |
Justice, relax. I did not intend to criticize you at all. English is my second language and I may sound aggressive but that's my style of writing and should not be taken personal. I can assure you that I don't bite . I don't know you and even if I would know you, I would not do it (criticize you) simply because I am okay if members wear beards, mustaches and even pink shirts if they want to.
My reason for asking the question is that I fully understand your reason for keeping a beard, what I do not fully grasp is that if any leader asks you to do it even though you said, may not have doctrine behind it but is just his personal preference, you said you would shave it even though you will have this problem of in-grown hairs. Then, if the counsel of the leaders (who already have spoken on the matter)is more important than your in-grown hair, why are you going to do it if any leader tell you to shave when you know already how the Brethren feel about it?
These are your words:
QUOTE |
Simply because there is evidence to suggest, and a fairly consistent example set by leaders, that having a beard might be frowned upon today |
I wasn't worked up.
I saw you were flying a foreign flag (to me) so I figured it might be a language barrier. That's why I asked for clarification. I was expressing my feelings, not showing my emotions.
I understand your question better now, and I feel I have an answer.
It is why we follow the prophet. Many people in the world say, "I would never follow a man, only God." But, to anyone who believes there is a prophet, and proper Priesthood authority, and a "chain of command," believe that they must follow the voice "of His servants, whether by [His] own voice or by [their's], it is the same."
For this reason we can safely say that when we follow our Priesthood leaders and their counsel is wrong, it is their responsibility, not ours. They will be held accountable for giving wrong instruction as a Priesthood holder, but you will be held accountable for your obedience.
Now, we have to be prudent. I believe this is where your concern is coming from. If our Priesthood leader asked us to do something that was clearly against God's law or the Church, then we would have to question it to that Church leader. But, if there is no clear precedent or command concerning the thing, then we have a choice. My choice is to follow my Priesthood leader's preference. Others may choose differently. Others can question. But, in my view it is my responsibility to be obedient in those instances and he is responsible for asking me to do it.