Long Hair and you be damned!

[h_p]

I don't see anything wrong with the middle initial thing, really. It's just a cultural thing in the church. One of those quirky things we do for seemingly no reason.

[Dash jones]

My first name is NOT Dash, but my middle name really is Dash. For some reason family and then friends decided that calling me Dash made them happy or something. However it occurred, when around them using my middle name (who calls their Kid Dash anyways??) stuck.

Ouside of family and friends I'm much more official sounding. But, after all these years, I still tend to go by Dash in my casual life.

[kennyhs]

My first name is NOT Dash, but my middle name really is Dash. For some reason family and then friends decided that calling me Dash made them happy or something. However it occurred, when around them using my middle name (who calls their Kid Dash anyways??) stuck.

Ouside of family and friends I'm much more official sounding. But, after all these years, I still tend to go by Dash in my casual life.

Dash is a good name, will you please invite me to your Baptism?

[ilovetherain]

What to do with the Sister you work with in the temple who is told in weekly meetings to not wear the dangling earrings and the painted finger nails - to set the proper example for sisters? When you work in the Temple you see lots of different "rebellions" - I call them. There is a man that comes on a regular basis and wears a very casual white linen shirt with no collar, no tie? Michael Wilcox' last book (something about the parable of the steps to heaven) helped me with this matter. And, sorry, I'm going to botch this, don't have it close, but basically he talks about one way we can be charitable towards each other is to conform. Being rebellious, even in little ways, makes others feel uncomfortable. Especially in the temple - Temple Presidency and Matrons tell us weekly to "ignore" these small things - to just love them. And I agree! But I do feel that we can conform to some degree so that we do not make our brothers and sisters uncomfortable - at church, and especially at the Temple.

[Sunain]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

[Sirocco]

Since I was never (or do I ever intend to be) in the military, I ultimately have no desire to conform to it's standards.
I mean it probably is different since I live in Canada (and not in Alberta) instead of like Utah.

[natasha]

I saw a man in the Temple with a pony tail. As far as full disclosure, no son of mine would have long hair, I disagree with it and would consider it a sign of rebellion. My son's never had a problem with keeping their hair short.

You might want to consider why that man in the temple had a pony tail. My husband is a Dakota Sioux and wears his hair long, and in a pony tail, as a sign of respect for his ancestors. On a side note....the women in our ward absolutely love his long hair.

My reason for saying, " I saw a man in the Temple with a pony tail," was meant to be positive, sorry it didn't sound that way, it was late.
My Great Grandfather was a full blooded Cherokee, no predjudice here. :ymhug:

But you did say you thought it was a sign of rebellion.

[kennyhs]

I saw a man in the Temple with a pony tail. As far as full disclosure, no son of mine would have long hair, I disagree with it and would consider it a sign of rebellion. My son's never had a problem with keeping their hair short.

You might want to consider why that man in the temple had a pony tail. My husband is a Dakota Sioux and wears his hair long, and in a pony tail, as a sign of respect for his ancestors. On a side note....the women in our ward absolutely love his long hair.

My reason for saying, " I saw a man in the Temple with a pony tail," was meant to be positive, sorry it didn't sound that way, it was late.
My Great Grandfather was a full blooded Cherokee, no predjudice here. :ymhug:

But you did say you thought it was a sign of rebellion.

Natasha, Yes I did say it was a sign of rebellion, in my children, not your husband. The tradition in my family is to have short hair on men, and I also disagree with tattoos, on my children, I would also consider it a sign of rebellion, they were taught otherwise. To each his own. I was happy to see that man in the Temple, I thought of the good men in the church who did not judge worthiness by the length of one's hair.

[isaacs2066]

I do not think general authorities should do it either, are they church leaders or authors..?

My son is named after his Grandfather, so we use his middle initial as a purpose of identity. They are church leaders, not fodder for ridicule.
Lets have a little respect.

no world leader that I am aware of uses their middle initial, why should religious leaders?

George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, they were leaders of the most powerful nation in the world.

You are right about some U.S. presidents.

What I was trying to say is that it isn't the standard way of referencing politicians in the same way as it is with our church leaders.

I just don't see the reason for it.

[skmo]

The whole experience was surreal that people would treat others so differently based on hair alone.

It may have looked like that to you, but it really makes sense when you consider human behavior. It's normal to judge people from appearances. Some companies have dress codes to improve productivity. There's evidence that in the majority of people, being dressed casually or sloppy makes people perform less efficient, lazy, or other ways that are negative. Dressing professionally, being well groomed with short hair and no facial hair contributes to increased work output. Some of us buck the trend, of course, and I always hated it because this belief made me dress in more uncomfortable clothing than I'd like.

However, it is a normal function of humans. How we present ourselves helps shape how others perceive us.

[isaacs2066]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

[kennyhs]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

There are so many challenges in this life, conforming to certain requirements seems simple to me. Nobody forces anyone, you choose. However, if
one wants to pass the sacrament, why is wearing a white shirt so difficult, or having a haircut? I have real problems, why make such a simple thing a problem.

[skmo]

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

A statement that asinine really needs to be prefaced by "In my opinion... so that people know your wrong ideas are yours, not most members'.

[Rose Garden]

All the way to the second page and no Hugh Nibley quote yet?

[isaacs2066]

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

A statement that asinine really needs to be prefaced by "In my opinion... so that people know your wrong ideas are yours, not most members'.

That sounds good, except that it is not an opinion it is a fact. The church has always been open about why it pushes people to conform to certain standards, both the members and the leaders.

You shouldn't have long hair and a beard because it looks like you are rebellious, or at least it did in the sixties...

That is what they always told me growing up, that it symbolized rebellion and that the president had asked us to cut our hair and shave.

[zionminded]

The church has evolved into a uniform wearing church. It requires a certain hair style, shirt color and suit and tie.

Our church is lead by ex-WW II mentality, and conformity is ruling the culture now.

[kennyhs]

The church has evolved into a uniform wearing church. It requires a certain hair style, shirt color and suit and tie.

Our church is lead by ex-WW II mentality, and conformity is ruling the culture now.

BYU is a church school, modesty is the bar they set, whats wrong with that? If you want to attend a church school, measure up.
I have been on the campus many times, how refreshing it is to see students dressed appropriately. Its called respect for oneself and
for the church, a big difference from WW11 mentality.

[kennyhs]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

The picture and remarks are offensive.

[LucianAMD]

There are so many challenges in this life, conforming to certain requirements seems simple to me. Nobody forces anyone, you choose. However, if
one wants to pass the sacrament, why is wearing a white shirt so difficult, or having a haircut?

Neither of those are requirements to pass the sacrament.

[kennyhs]

There are so many challenges in this life, conforming to certain requirements seems simple to me. Nobody forces anyone, you choose. However, if
one wants to pass the sacrament, why is wearing a white shirt so difficult, or having a haircut?

Neither of those are requirements to pass the sacrament.

The white shirt is a requirement where I live.

[h_p]

The white shirt is a requirement where I live.

I would hope they'd at least cut someone some slack if, say, they don't have one, or it's a recently reactivated member who didn't wear one. If not, that'd be Pharisaism at its finest.

[kennyhs]

The white shirt is a requirement where I live.

I would hope they'd at least cut someone some slack if, say, they don't have one, or it's a recently reactivated member who didn't wear one. If not, that'd be Pharisaism at its finest.

There is no excuse for not having one, you can buy nice white shirts at any thrift store. A reactivated member needs to be told nicely, no Pharisiam involved. I don't mind anyone coming to church dressed as they want, especially if they are visiting and just felt the need to attend church. The members would welcome them with open arms, not with judgemental stares. Passing the sacrament is a different thing.

[skmo]

That sounds good, except that it is not an opinion it is a fact. The church has always been open about why it pushes people to conform to certain standards, both the members and the leaders.

I was hoping you'd see my point and try to sound less asinine, not more.

You shouldn't have long hair and a beard because it looks like you are rebellious, or at least it did in the sixties...

You think maybe there was a reason that happened? Perhaps, maybe, because over 90% of the time it was correct? The US was leading the world into a new era of discovery and advancement. If you wanted to be a part of the growth that changed the world into a better place, you had to grow up and learn to be an adult, not a rebellious kid. How you present yourself matters. It matters today (but with different standards) and it happened even more 50 years ago. Yes, there was a group advocating change, to rebel against "the man" and all kinds of other idiot ideas that came from the drug addled heart and sold-to-satan soul of cretinous and evil people like John Lennon. The world we have today, with prisoners getting sex change operations paid by for the government and condoms given freely to all children at schools got its beginning from the beatniks and those of similar ilk.

That is what they always told me growing up, that it symbolized rebellion and that the president had asked us to cut our hair and shave.

emphasis added

Exactly. You were A-S-K-E-D not required. Not commanded. It was like when President Hinckley told us males shouldn't have earrings. I never wore mine to church, and as I was a BYU student then I didn't wear it at school, but I do occasionally now.

Stereotypes exist for a reason: They're normally more accurate than not. As long as you're not betting the whole farm on them, it makes sense to pay attention to stereotypes. You still have the ability to make up your own mind, but watching for clues is usually smart.

[Sunain]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

The picture and remarks are offensive.

It's not offensive at all, it makes a point. We have that picture of Jesus all over our chapels and temples yet as a current church policy, male members of the church are forced to comply with a single short hair style. Male missionaries were scheduled a time in the MTC just before they were leaving to get that hair cut when I went on a mission. Personally, I find short hair cold and uncomfortable. It is not apostasy, lots of men just don't like short hair. As long as its neat, tidy, cleaned and groomed, I see no issues. Crew cuts are a very militaristic hair style and not everyone, especially followers of Christ, wish to be associated with that. Now if I could, I'd permanently get rid of the hair on my face. I hate shaving, I hate hair on my face but I know a lot of people that like having a beard, to each is own, that's what makes us different and unique. We all have different styles.

Too much emphasis is being placed on outward appearance lately unfortunately. Plastic surgery, excessive make-up and physical augmentations are becoming all too common.

Its overboard to tell people who are well groomed that they aren't. If someone comes in looking like they just got out of bed, then yes, I can see there being a bit of a concern when going to the temple or to sacrament meeting. Besides, its nicer to have longer hair before it starts falling out and it becomes really short :))

[kennyhs]

As long as a person is well groomed/brushed, it doesn't matter what their hairstyle is or how long it is. The church and its members really seem to be obsessed with super short hair for men as a sign that they are properly groomed. This stems from the missionary haircut style: https://missionary.lds.org/clothing/eld ... r?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think the idea of "requiring" short hair for men in the church comes from the military having required crew-cuts and since many of the church leaders were in the military that ideal has transferred over unfortunately.

The whole, you can't have a beard or have longer hair and be a righteous priesthood holder REALLY needs to leave the church's ethos.

It really stems from the fact that the church as an organization forces the styles and opinions and practices and customs of mammon onto its members to make itself look better.

The picture and remarks are offensive.

It's not offensive at all, it makes a point. We have that picture of Jesus all over our chapels and temples yet as a current church policy, male members of the church are forced to comply with a single short hair style. Male missionaries were scheduled a time in the MTC just before they were leaving to get that hair cut when I went on a mission. Personally, I find short hair cold and uncomfortable. It is not apostasy, lots of men just don't like short hair. As long as its neat, tidy, cleaned and groomed, I see no issues. Crew cuts are a very militaristic hair style and not everyone, especially followers of Christ, wish to be associated with that.

Too much emphasis is being placed on outward appearance lately unfortunately. Plastic surgery, excessive make-up and physical augmentations are becoming all to common.

Its overboard to tell people who are well groomed that they aren't. If someone comes in looking like they just got out of bed, then yes, I can see there being a bit of a concern when going to the temple or to sacrament meeting. Besides, its nicer to have longer hair before it starts falling out and it becomes really short :))

It is a bummer when it starts falling out.