I am a man, teeming with testosterone, evidenced by my extremely hairy body. Oh, I am not exaggerating. You name the body part, and I have hair growing there: back, shoulders, toes, neck. I used to loathe it, but now I embrace it. It makes for some diverse looks, especially since I can grow a pretty thick beard. I’m talking five-o’clock-shadow by lunch time. The only real problem I have is with shaving. Don’t misunderstand. I actually prefer to be clean shaven, but it hurts. Shaving is never comfortable for me, though it is sometimes less painful. Allowing my stubble to flourish for two to three days is preferable for me.
Figure 1: Case in point.
If I had my way, I would shave two or three times a week at most, with the occasional minor beard growth or goatee. Unfortunately, I have a serious problem as far as stubble is concerned. My employer doesn’t allow facial hair except for “trimmed moustaches.” Few people, very few,
can pull off the “trimmed moustache” look without looking like a pedophile or porn star (see Figure 1). The reason for the standard? My best guess is that it stems from a tradition, which began in the LDS church and exploded onto the campuses of its schools.
First, I should explain. I do not teach at an LDS-church-owned or church-sponsored university. My issue is directly related to a policy adapted as a result of deep-seeded traditions that no one has questioned for so long, many people begin to think that it is standard church practice or official church policy, and, for some, even doctrine. Here, obviously, I address the false notion that beards are not allowed in positions of church leadership, a tradition that has trickled down to the most irrelevant of settings, situations, and locales, most notably, LDS-church-school campuses. In my years of attending the LDS church (almost all of my years, aside from some inactive periods) I have seen dozens of men called to positions of leadership while wearing an attractive beard. These are men whom I had never seen clean-shaven, men not one ward member could imagine as anything but bearded. Sadly, in every case, immediately after their calling, the beard disappears. This, of course, begs the question: “What has facial hair to do with a man’s spirituality or ability to successfully oversee his church responsibilities?”
Let’s digress for a moment to talk about another strangely controversial topic by comparison: earrings. This is a relatively new “controversy.” Several years ago, in a General Relief Society broadcast, President Hinckley suggested the need for women not to wear more than one set of earrings.[1] The following April (2001), M. Russell Ballard reemphasized this counsel: “Have we studied his [the prophet’s] counsel and identified the things we need to avoid or to do differently? I know a 17-year-old who, just prior to the prophet’s talk, had pierced her ears a second time. She came home from the fireside, took off the second set of earrings, and simply said to her parents, ‘If President Hinckley says we should only wear one set of earrings, that’s good enough for me.’”[2] No doubt, Elder Ballard meant to share this story as an example of faithfulness. He continues: “Wearing two pair of earrings may or may not have eternal consequences for this young woman, but her willingness to obey the prophet will. And if she will obey him now, on something relatively simple, how much easier it will be to follow him when greater issues are at stake.” I am not afraid to say that I disagree in some ways with this sentiment. Elder Ballard follows this example with a brief reference to the “pride and stubbornness” of Naaman. What does not wearing an extra set of earrings have to do with cleansing leprosy in the Jordan River? This is the case of an extreme, not quite relevant example to support a suggestion.
I will counter that Biblical reference with an example of my own, which focuses on the idea of what makes an example relevant. While serving as a district leader on my mission, I had to interview a lot of people preparing for baptism. The importance of that interview cannot be overstated. Do you have a testimony of the gospel? Do you understand the gospel? Do you commit to living certain commandments you are not accustomed to living? Joining the LDS Church is a serious commitment and lifestyle change. One question that always hung up interviewees was asking them for clarification of what they understood to be the Word of Wisdom. Almost no one remembered what that was until I started to explain it, except for one young woman, approximately 12 years old. She nailed everything in the interview, including the Word of Wisdom: “No coffee, no alcohol, no drugs, no tobacco.” Silence filled the air as I waited for her to finish, but she never did.
“And no tea,” I said.
“What! I can’t drink tea?”
The girl absolutely loved iced tea, and how that escaped her clearly well-tuned senses during the teaching process boggled my mind. I had to make sure this girl would commit to living the Word of Wisdom or I couldn’t allow her to be baptized. Yeah, I was hardcore.
“Well, I might have to drink iced tea once in a while, like once a year,” she said, after I tried to get her to commit.
“Would you kill someone once a year?” Yeah, I did go there.
“No.” Her face crinkled and she sat upright.
“Well, it’s the same thing. It’s still a sin.” Yes, I had a problem.
“I will never drink tea again.” Her voice quivered a little.
I was the product of the culture I grew up in, the culture in which I was taught what was right and wrong and how the Lord “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.”[3]
I use this illustration because I think it’s ridiculous. I use this illustration because, while Mormons might consider drinking tea a sin, it still does not equate to murder—or any other sin for that matter. While a once living prophet, a recent one at that, suggested women not wear more than one set of earrings, there is no official church doctrine on the subject, which brings us back to facial hair: there is no official church doctrine on that subject either. Bishops and stake presidents alike are not forbidden from growing a beard. People have simply embraced the tradition to such a degree that they expect newly called church leaders to shave, and those newly called leaders believe they need to shave.
In order to show how deeply Mormons have ingrained this custom into their religion, I would like to provide some examples. First, the following material, published as a long excerpt in the December 1971, New Era, this is from an address Dallin H. Oaks gave the student body of BYU He prefaced his remarks on beards with the following: “The ban on long hair and beards … [at BYU] is a question of symbolism and propriety.” He eventually gets to the following statement: “Unlike modesty, which is an eternal value in the sense of rightness or wrongness in the eyes of God, our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic. They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time. Historical precedents are worthless in this area.” President Oaks flat out admits that it is not an edict from God. However, that has not kept the cultural confusion from persisting more than 40 years later. Of course, Oaks had plenty more to say to justify this ban:
There is nothing inherently wrong about long hair or beards, any more than there is anything inherently wrong with possessing an empty liquor bottle. But a person with a beard or an empty liquor bottle is susceptible of being misunderstood. Either of these articles may reduce a person’s effectiveness and promote misunderstanding because of what people may reasonably conclude when they view them in proximity to what these articles stand for in our society today.
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. As Elder Sterling W. Sill has observed:
“A let-down in personal appearance has far more than physical significance, for when ugliness gets its roots into one part of our lives it may soon spread to every other part.” (The Quest for Excellence, Bookcraft, p. 38.)
Now we are responsible for how others perceive us. This is no different than any other victim blaming. And I am sure I don’t need to point out the serious problem judging a beard or long hair as part of an “unkempt appearance” or “a let-down in personal appearance.” Growing a beard and growing out ones hair are both meticulously hard work.
Of course, it doesn’t end with official statements. In Jack Weyland’s short fiction “Punch and Cookies Forever,” published in March 1972, New Era, fictional Debbie says to fictional Greg Jefferys (the long inactive son of a prominent counselor in a stake presidency): “You’re not, Greg. You’re just playing a part. The hair, the beard—it’s a costume. Underneath waiting to get out is a man like your father who will be an effective leader in the Church.” Apparently, long hair and a beard preclude someone from effective leadership.
I can go on and on, but I will conclude this section with a more generalized statement about appearance, offered by Kathie Johnston Brough:
So ask yourself what messages others might receive from the tie you do or do not wear, the makeup you apply, the hairstyle you select, or the kinds of clothes you wear for church, school, and work? Through small decisions like these you may choose which messages you send with your second language, but you cannot send the messages of God and the messages of mammon at the same time. What is your message? How are you sending it?” (“About ‘Reading’ and Righting,” January 1976, New Era)
We cannot be responsible for the way others interpret our dress. Have the scriptures taught us nothing on this issue? Consider the Lord’s own words to the prophet Samuel: “The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”[4] The words of President Oaks to the student body of BYU were just as out of touch then as they are now. By all means, dictate that dress and grooming be “neat in appearance,” but there is no reason to dictate beyond that. We should ever adhere to the words of Brigham Young in this great out-of-context piece: “Create your own fashions and make your clothing to please yourselves, independent of outside influences” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 12:202). Thank you, Brother Brigham. You had some flaws, my man, but when you spoke truth, you knew how to bring it with “the tongue of seven thunders.”
As for me, well, I’m a rebel in many ways, but my rebellion has a focus. I prefer to target injustice. I prefer to stand up to customs and traditions that mean little to nothing in the eternities. I have served on a stake high council, and I have served in the primary, and one thing is for sure, regardless of where I serve in the future, I can guarantee, always, my face will be as stubble.
[1] “Your Greatest Challenge, Mother,” October 2000.
[2] “His Word Shall Ye Receive.”
[3] Doctrine & Covenants 131:6.
[4] 1 Samuel 16:7.
WJS
WJS is a professor of English Literature. He is the current vice president for Mormon Scholars in the Humanities. He is also a fitness fanatic who used to weigh over 400 pounds, but traded his addiction to eating for an addiction to working out and training for the next race. He loves to discuss literature, film, politics, and food. He is married, with three children.
All posts by WJS
Excellent and timely! We need to broaden this discussion. Mormon cultural standards are alarmingly parallel to the Rameumptom of the Zoramites. Church leaders are far too hung-up on what people think of them. There is a balance to strike but it has little to do with the things that are emphasized in the culture. Part of the problem is the Utah-centric policies of the Church and elements of dress and conduct that are simply irrelevant and meaningless in many parts of the world. When I lived in Seattle, both councillors to the Bishop were bearded, and I had purple hair when I was called to replace one of them, so…
Daniel, I couldn’t agree more; we indeed need to broaden this discussion. Also, I now want purple hair.
When I joined the Church, I had a beard. When I was called 18 months later to become A Ward Mission leader, I was asked to shave it off, which I did (kept the moustache). the High Councilor, who called me and asked that I shave it off told me, when I questioned him about HF and Jesus and most of Prophets who had beards informed me I could have a beard, when I became the Prophet. In just, really.
After we moved from that Ward, I grew it back and have had it ever since. Served as an EQP, Bishopric, HC and veil worker with a beard. When we moved to Colorado, I asked in the Denver Temple about resuming as a veil worker and was told I had to shave. Why? Because the Prophet said so, which is never a good answer for me. So, I can attend but not serve. No problem, I guess. Maybe when the Fort Collins Temple is completed they might change their minds……… Doesn’t make sense to me. The whole thing started with the David O. McKay era and the clean-shaven, white shirt look which has traditionally stuck all these years. It’s just a beard…..
Jeff, funny, isn’t it, that even the prophets encourage us not to simply take them at their word. David O. McKay was a handsome clean-cut man, no doubt, but so was Heber J. Grant, with his beautifully manicured beard.
Wholeheartedly agreed, Jeff! I talked with my husband about this topic last night and he said his mother (who is a convert) was highly influenced in her beliefs by David O. McKay. I wonder why his points of view are the ones that have stuck over others.
Good stuff man. I hated having to shave every day when I went to school at the “Y”. I never use the word hate lightly but I hate shaving every day! Which is why now I don’t. I have served in numerous church callings and attend the temple frequently unshaven and no one minds. No one questions my integrity or obedience level. It’s well past time to let go of the public relations farce about being clean shaven.
I keep clean-shaven not to please my Priesthood leaders, but only to please my wife. 🙂
That said, I’m not sure I could grow the kind of beard I want, anyway.
Thanks for the great post. I agree 100%.
Didn’t Jesus make it pretty clear how he felt about people changing/worrying about their outward appearance as to appear more righteous and/or worshipful?
EXACTLY!!
I very much appreciate this piece. As an LDS woman, proudly married to a highly beard-enabled LDS man, I find the follicle rhetoric in the LDS culture absurd. Yes, the “ban” on beards and long hair served a purpose, for a time. But the fact that it continues to thrive within the LDS Church absolutely angers me. My husband can grow a beard in about three seconds. He also hates shaving. I, personally, do not care if he has a beard or not. Though stubble can be somewhat uncomfortable. I hate, hate, hate, that so many men feel pressured to shave their beards, goatees, mustaches, and the like because they get called to positions of “authority” within the Church. I say, leave them be, and see what becometh of thee! Perhaps if our focused changed from a culture of dictating what each other wears, on our bodies and our faces, and instead became a culture of love an acceptance we would soon understand what the Lord was saying when he said, “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.”
Trina, you speak great wisdom. We need to leave behind the medieval idea of the outward appearance being a reflection of inward virtue. Not to suggest that a beard is or ever has been any kind of negative reflection, of course.
I didn’t realize this was an issue when I was younger. Half the bishops in my stake growing up donned what I saw as ‘cowboy mustaches’. Of course that was in the Ogden, UT area and you know a lot of us Ogdenites are nothing but trouble. 😉
But I agree that things tend to be a bit too micro-managed at times. White shirts and clean faces won’t bring salvation. Didn’t Joseph say something about teaching correct principles and then letting people govern themselves?
Yes and I believe he also said something about when you teach people something that goes against tradition they fly apart like broken glass.
Preface: I have a very nice, very well-groomed beard, and only occasionally shave completely to get a fresh start or for some other reason.
Story: In a previous ward I had been cast as Joseph in the stake production of Savior of the World. When I was interviewing to renew my temple recommend, I was “strongly encouraged” to shave my beard, and prayerfully consider why it might be important to be obedient to this counsel (the reason given was that we were a “training stake,” preparing the future leaders of the Church…). I indicated that a beard would be an asset in my role in the play, but they said that they were asking everyone in the stake to shave, and then would be applying false beards to those participating in the play who needed them.
…
I did not shave for the play.
Thank you for this article. You have addressed the social pressures that are present for men in the church as well. Too much nitpicking makes people more self conscious and less service oriented. Even if the person doesn’t attend church, being focused solely on one’s appearance shows extreme insecurity and devalues the genuine self. Aside from the psycho-babble, how is a service oriented, others first religion supposed to set good examples by worrying about the opinions of others on their dress or looks. Mother Teresa was of humble origin and weathered from malnutrition, stress, and exposure to the elements. Does this mean that her service to humanity through God does not count? or that she is not reliable? The word humble comes up readily in the Bible and BOM. But group mentality will always be group mentality. When that group is insecure and lacking direction, anything that differs will be attacked mindlessly and without precedent. Common Sense is not common.
Amanda, thanks, you have really nailed it. The culture of the church, in many ways, tends to lean toward nitpicking in all facets of life, which is why, I think, I find so many people who are self conscious or worried about the way others will perceive them in any of their actions. That can create a dangerous mindset for someone who believes the smallest sin or inconsistency has damned her or him to hell.
Hugh Nibley certainly did not lack for an opinion about this:
“The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.”
http://latterdayspence.blogspot.com/2010/06/not-so-clean-cut.html
That is a great quote, and your own thoughts on the subject, I think, lend a lot of insight. It’s that kind of reaction that is the growing norm.
My husband was a YSA bishop in Seattle for ten years with a beard. At one point his whole Bishopric and the whole Stake Presidency had beards. When GA’s came to visit, not a word was said about beards. My husband was a wonderful bishop who positively affected many young lives. He keeps his beard because I like it (and have for the 55 years he has had it.
Now, however, it has been decreed from SLC that one cannot be a temple worker with a beard. He was a veil worker and had to give it up because he would not shave his beard. It makes absolutely no sense, and it makes me very angry.
I would be angered as well, Linda. Obviously your husband has shown that he is a faithful and effective leader, yet because of his facial hair is not “worth” to be a veil worker in the temple. Says who?! I wonder if these things are actually prayed about, or if people just make blanket decisions and don’t care about the precedence they are setting. Faithful people come to us in many shapes and forms. It’s too bad they refused to see that in your husband.
William-
Thank you for addressing this topic. Having served as a Bishop with a beard (Van Dyke style goatee), the question of shaving it off actually came from me in a moment of weakness to the stake president at the time of my calling. He pointedly stated that there is nothing in the handbook prohibiting beards.
As an aside, one of my counselors sported an awesome mustache as did the ward clerk, who would fluctuate between a full beard and just the mustache. Our ward mission leader also had the most wonderful full, white beard that would put any would-be Santa Claus impersonator to shame.
There was an occasion that I was asked by a male relative, who hadn’t seen me since being called as a bishop, “They let you have facial hair?” My response was, “Well, you have facial hair, too. You just choose to shave it off.”
As for the temple issue that Linda Furness brings up (it makes me mad, too), why is it okay in the baptistry to sport a beard, but it is not okay if you’re a veil worker? Aren’t veil workers representing the Lord? Since none of the church’s paintings of the Savior show him clean-shaven, wouldn’t a bearded veil worker be a much more accurate representation of the Lord?
Michael, thanks for sharing your experience. It’s always good to hear things like this happening because it provides hope that the shackles of false traditions are breaking. As for Linda’s experience, that upsets me, too, especially if it means someone who has served so long and so faithfully can no longer do it because of a beard.
That is some good looking facial hair. If the GA’s could grow facial hair like that, they’d surely rethink the whole issue and we’d take Leviticus 19:27 literally.
It sounds like the original article and subsequent discussion do not consider both sides of the “clean shaven” issue. On the one hand, there is a principle of whited sepulchres (Matt 23: 25-28) and the principle of the Lord looketh on the heart (1 Sam 16:7) which lends credence to a beard being purely a personal decision. But on the other hand, there is also the principle of not offend brother (1 Cor 8: 13) and the principle of non-distraction (Elder Oaks, Oct 1998) which support the idea that facial hair (and earrings and tattoos) really do matter to the community.
When these principles seem to be at odds, we need to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Whether to shave or not should be based on the situation, considering both the individual and the circumstance. I believe the best advice is to maintain a clean and well groomed appearance and to acknowledge that this will change over time and can vary based on local cultural norms. Nevertheless, I still feel it is very important to carefully consider the counsel from our leaders, which does not mean blind obedience.
By the way, I have a short trimmed beard.
Blaine, I appreciate the perspective, but as far as I am concerned there is no “other side of the issue.” Restrictions on earrings and tattoos make far more sense than limiting the natural condition of the body.
I won’t dye my hair because then it’s not in as good a condition for donating.
When my singles ward bishop in Wisconsin referred to some statement by a GA in one of the CES firesides or conference that we had just watched–something to the effect that we need to not follow the world in our dress and appearance–I told him I wasn’t. I wasn’t following the world’s standard of appropriate business attire. To his credit, he (a businessman) laughed and left me alone. Well, he didn’t really leave me alone. He called me variously as home evening group leader (social cohesion factor for our ward), and ward mission leader. I can tell you, none of my spiritual problems come from my hair–I’ve got plenty of other excuses for those.
Several people have commented on being upset about the new policy about being clean shaven to be a temple worker. I wanted to share my opinion on the matter. The temple is supposed to be a place of peace and worship. Some people are of the persuasion that beards are unacceptable (for reasons discussed in the article), and so when they see a temple worker with a beard it upsets them and becomes a “stumbling block” for them.
For this same reason, one of the artists who painted a mural in the creation room of one of the more recently dedicated temples (sometime in the last ten or fifteen years, sorry, I can’t remember which temple, maybe Nauvoo?) was asked to remove a rainbow from the mural. Some people feel that rainbows did not appear on earth until after the flood, and having a rainbow present in a creation mural would be a stumbling block for them.
The point here is not to declare doctrine that beards make one unworthy to serve in the temple, or that rainbows did in fact appear for the first time after the flood, but simply to remove something that could be a source of contention for others. Should these things be a source of contention for others? No. But are they? Yes. These are practical decisions, for practical reasons, whether you agree with them or not.
Our bodies are temples, and as such, we should take care of our bodies, inside and out. As long as you take care of your beard, there’s no reason you shouldn’t have one. Unless of course, you are a temple worker. In that case, I think it is more a matter of obedience, and not letting a church policy become a stumbling block for you.
Amac, thanks for the comment. I have to counter, of course, with the question, couldn’t it be just as much a “stumbling block” to deny someone the opportunity to work in the temple because he has a beard, especially if he has served in the temple with a beard for many years?
My brother-in-law was a bishop in Orem, Utah. A while ago, we were talking about the issue of facial hair and how he felt that it would be appropriate for a bishop to ask an Aaronic Priesthood holder to shave so they could pass the sacrament. I argued that a Bishop should say nothing like this, especially to some 14 year old proudly just beginning to sprout chin hair.
He made the argument that it was within his stewardship that if he felt God was telling him that it was distracting to a member of the congregation, he had the obligation to tell the youth to shave so he could pass the sacrament.
I argue that if the God of the Universe and Everything allows atrocities to happen to the innocent, yet cares so much for the tender feeling of such congregation members to the point that he will intercede with a bishop about a boy’s mustache, such a god is a unworthy of my love and worship.
UTAHHIKER801, those are bold words, but I like ’em.
I have long been irritated by such nit-picky rules. Maybe distraction has something to do with it, as mentioned in comments above, although it shouldn’t IMO. I blogged about the expanding interpretations of the principle of non-distraction last year (http://www.wheatandtares.org/12967/distracted-by-non-distraction/).
Of course another explanation on the veil worker restriction might be that *because* these people were all bearded if we allowed bearded men to act as proxy in that role in the temple, it might come to be seen as a *requirement*. So instead being clean-shaven becomes the requirement. Kind of like reason given for not being allowed to stand for the intermediate hymn – it might come to be seen as necessary, so instead it’s necessary to remain seated. All totally crazy, but for some reason we seem to breed that kind of contorted logic as a church.
Hedgehog, thanks for the comments; you make perfect sense. If we spend too much time worrying about distractions, how does that not become a distraction? Right on! Thanks for the link, great stuff.
I feel like the distraction argument is silly. Instead of asking people to stop distracting us, why don’t we work on not being distracted by such small details? I feel the same way about the recent push in Mormonism over the last few years to blame people who take offense. Instead of telling people not to be offended by everything, how about we work on not being offensive? Both instances feel like a form of victim blaming to me. I think we need to work on taking responsibility for our own actions/feelings/etc and stop forcing other people to take responsibility for our actions/feelings/etc.
I agree to a point but there are way too many people in the church who are “offended” by nonsense. Nobody said hello to me when I went to that activity. They didn’t ask me to be on that committee. They didn’t sing the hymn I suggested. They said something in the lesson I am sure was meant to slight me.
Granted there are dopes in the LDS church, as in any organization, that are just offensive people. They have to point out to others what they don’t like about them, their clothes, their hair, their beard, they are not “mormon enough.” I guess I grew up in a place where that never mattered at church and we welcomed everyone.
If facial hair is an indicator of evil, then how would one explain clean-shaven Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann, Mengele and Heydrich and serial killers. My husband has sported various combinations of facial hair over the years and so I have heard about the "shaving requirement". He just shaved it off because he did not see the need for a confrontation and thought that his "obedience to leaders" was more important than a rebellion centered on hair.
Elder Oak's 1971 comments were a reflection of that time in US culture, but those rebellions of appearance have been replaced by tattoos, piercings, lobe gauges and facial implants. I think that Church leadership is not overly concerned with appearances, they are taking responsibility. Although they are not responsible for what other think, they do not need to provide a target for criticism that is easily avoided with a razor.
First of all, any man that can pull off a nice thick beard should be entitled to wearing it how he pleases. Just as any woman that doesn’t want to shave her legs should be able to pull that look off without judgement.
Beamer,
True that.