- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Meh Mormon wrote:
So what happens during “Movember”? Can no one on campus participate? Or is there a month long suspension of the policy?
No one on campus can participate. There is no exemption. In fairness, the policy is applied to faculty and staff as well as students. My son was shocked when he came home after a year at BYU and saw the bishop in a neighboring ward with a beard. He said he couldn’t have a beard, his BYU bishop told him that bishops weren’t allowed to have beards. My advice to him: well maybe they forgot to tell Bishop **** and Pres. **** because neither of them seem to have a problem with it, and he had the beard when he was called and the First Presidency approved him. (We settled on the no beards on bishops being a BYU only thing, although I am not aware of any other bishops with beards – I have seen counselors though).
nibbler wrote:I apologize in advance but the title of the thread is “Beards and BUY” after all. SunbeltRed, you think your vent was bad
I don’t get it. Okay, so I’m not exactly in the minority even among general membership in the church but still, I don’t get it. Are we still stuck in the 50s? Are we still afraid of beatniks?
The whole thing is very Pharisaical to me. Not too long ago the president of BYU-Idaho commented on his concerns over seeing people on campus that were wearing pants that were hemmed 4 inches above the ankle. He also mentioned that some men were not clean shaven. It truly feels like the standards at BYU-Idaho are what they are just so they can one up BYU’s honor code.
Here’s the other thing. It contributes towards making people judgmental. There can be a reward of sorts for the people that are concerned with finding these motes; people that feel it is their duty to keep everyone else in line can be the cream that rises to the top. I believe this belongs in the “put others down to lift yourself up” category. Unfortunately sometimes that attitude gets rewarded. It’s not doing the person playing the role of peer police any favors at all, in fact it’s harming them… IMO of course.
I was exposed to these types of things while I was in the MTC. At that point in my life I hadn’t been a member of the church for very long so I probably stood out from the culture like a sore thumb. Several people let me know that in a mean spirit. I was also much older than your average missionary so it was like water off a duck’s back. All the same it would be better for all involved to distance ourselves from practices that can nourish mean spiritedness.
I just don’t believe that beards or the length of our pants are genuine outward signs of inward commitments. For that matter, how does an inward commitment ever reach outward to other people’s commitments? Argh.
I’m not too proud of those opinions but they are latent feelings I have. I’m not a student at any of the BYUs, this issue doesn’t even affect me, I don’t know why I get emotionally invested about this issue. Why yes, sometimes I do have a beard
One parting question if you made it this far. Can someone doing distance education at BYU wear shorts or have a beard?
I agree with you, Nibbler, that’s why I quoted Pres. Uchtdorf – Pharisaical indeed. And yes, I have taken distance learning courses from BYU, there is no ecclesiastical endorsement or even a picture sent to the school. You can look however you please. Heck, you might even be gay and living in a relationship and they wouldn’t know (or care, apparently)!
DarkJedi wrote:Meh Mormon wrote:So what happens during “Movember”? Can no one on campus participate? Or is there a month long suspension of the policy?
No one on campus can participate. There is no exemption. In fairness, the policy is applied to faculty and staff as well as students. My son was shocked when he came home after a year at BYU and saw the bishop in a neighboring ward with a beard. He said he couldn’t have a beard, his BYU bishop told him that bishops weren’t allowed to have beards. My advice to him: well maybe they forgot to tell Bishop **** and Pres. **** because neither of them seem to have a problem with it, and he had the beard when he was called and the First Presidency approved him. (We settled on the no beards on bishops being a BYU only thing, although I am not aware of any other bishops with beards – I have seen counselors though).
It was my understanding that you could have a “neatly trimmed” mustache at BYU. Maybe a month isn’t enough to go far beyond the neatly trimmed threshold. So they changed it?
Bishoprics and beards. Local leader roulette I’m afraid. Here’s my little anecdote:
A guy with a lumberjack beard was called into the bishopric. He didn’t shave for a few weeks, no one thought much of it. I can’t remember the details but somehow he ended up having a face to face with his former mission president. Of course the subject of “What are you doing in church?” comes up. He told his MP that he had recently been called to be in the bishopric:
MP: Did they ask you to shave?
Lumberjack: No
MP: That means you have a good SP. Your SP knows that he doesn’t even have to ask you to shave because he knows you’ll do the right thing.
He was clean shaven the next week.
And I’ve known many people in the bishopric that had various forms/stages of facial hair. I think a lot of it depends on who you draw for local leadership.
I believe it was a policy in the general handbook of instructions, but in the last revision the policy is gone (except temple workers from what I understand) nibbler wrote:I’m super curious as to how the no beard policy is enforced. Do campus police stop people with beards that are walking around on campus and demand to see their medical exemption cards?
😆 I’m guessing that students largely police themselves, if an enrolled student’s stubble gets too long they get reported and called to an honor court.From my experience, the enforcement comes in when you come to some type of checkpoint. For me it was to do business at the registrar’s office. For others it could be to access the testing center or the library.
I have heard similar stories of young women being turned away for not dressing modestly enough (leggings, skinny jeans, etc.)
Some parts of our culture are stupid. This is one of them. I find it fascinating how Mormons behave when we are the minority vs. how Mormons behave when in the majority. Two completely different approaches. Yeah, unfortunately, we aren’t as unnatural as we like to think we are. Peculiar isn’t always a good thing. Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, unfortunately, we aren’t as unnatural as we like to think we are. Peculiar isn’t always a good thing.
A few weeks back we had a conversation in priesthood about what it means to be a “peculiar people.” This particular group gravitated toward the definition of peculiar meaning uncommon or unusual as opposed to strange or odd.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I find it fascinating how Mormons behave when we are the minority vs. how Mormons behave when in the majority. Two completely different approaches.
I heard it quoted as “we can be like salt. we are great when sprinkled a bit here and there, but when we become a majority we are not so great” So maybe there is more to the “ye are the salt of the earth” parable
DarkJedi wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, unfortunately, we aren’t as unnatural as we like to think we are. Peculiar isn’t always a good thing.
A few weeks back we had a conversation in priesthood about what it means to be a “peculiar people.” This particular group gravitated toward the definition of peculiar meaning uncommon or unusual as opposed to strange or odd.
Sort of sounds like the same thing? Arguing semantics in HPG, a useful Sunday afternoon activity
Arguing semantics? I can do that. There was an overwhelming feeling of restlessness peculiar to high priests group meetings.
:angel: nibbler wrote:Arguing semantics? I can do that.
There was an overwhelming feeling of restlessness peculiar to high priests group meetings.
:angel:
Better than my HPG meetings where it is generally:yawn: only to be occasionally be disrupted by one of the guys that lost a few bricks due to a stroke.SunbeltRed wrote:DarkJedi wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, unfortunately, we aren’t as unnatural as we like to think we are. Peculiar isn’t always a good thing.
A few weeks back we had a conversation in priesthood about what it means to be a “peculiar people.” This particular group gravitated toward the definition of peculiar meaning uncommon or unusual as opposed to strange or odd.
Sort of sounds like the same thing? Arguing semantics in HPG, a useful Sunday afternoon activity
Actually it wasn’t in my own ward – it was a YSA elders quorum. There was tons more to the discussion, of course, but the gist was they felt more like they were just different because they were Mormon and that’s a bit unusual here. They didn’t feel “strange” or “weird” and for the most part try to help others see that they aren’t weirdos. Peculiar, to this group anyway, clearly meant that they were a minority. I suppose you had to be there, but it was a great discussion on a whole different perspective of peculiar.
Someone on W&T pointed out that the polygamous church presidents were the ones with beards. First one with no beard was David O. McKay, whose parents were the first to have practiced no polygamy. First of all, that’s horrifyingly recent. Secondly, might this be the real unstated reason the church hates facial hair? It equates it with polygamy, and therefore reminds us of our embarrassing and damaging past?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.