A while back, a visiting area authority seventy spoke at our stake conference. He has since been promoted to a general authority seventy and was recently excommunicated. His name is not important for my topic, and I feel a little guilty drawing attention to him.

During his instructional session with stake priesthood leadership, he explained how none of us should have beards or mustaches. He said that we should model our behavior and appearance after the current church leadership. He told a couple of stories about stake leaders in other parts of his area who showed great faith by removing their facial hair when asked to do so.

Moreover, he said that this was not a policy that we would find in Handbook 1 or Handbook 2, nor would we find it on the church website. We would never expect to hear church leaders teach this doctrine from general conference and we would not expect to read about it in the Ensign magazine. He said, "Instead, the twelve send out guys like me to teach local leaders what they should do in settings like this." (It's been a while, so my quote may not be perfect, but it is close.)

As one might expect with a group of stake and ward leaders, the level of compliance was nearly perfect. By the next Sunday, men who I had never seen without facial hair were clean shaven. Years later, most of them are still without beard or mustache.

So, who give a rip, right?

I started thinking about this because of recent posts to this board asking if men in the church were allowed to wear beards. In my area, many of the "young" men (let's say those under the age of 40) have beards. I would estimate one of every five to ten have some sort of facial hair. It would seem that the younger generation never go the news.

However, since this was never church policy, who can say? It was only communicated to our stake as un-official council from a church leader, "...to model the appearance of general authorities..." Since then, I have seen church videos such as the "I am a Mormon" fiasco that showed guys in beards as a way of showing that the church loves and accepts people of all appearances.

Is this another case of the church changing its policy without admitting it ("We have always been at war with Eurasia") or is it a case of attracting people by saying that the church accepts you as you are, but in reality if plans to get you entangled and then force you to conform later, once you are in so deep that you cannot resist? A more charitable view is that the right hand does not know the left hand and that guys like the former area authority seventy are just making stuff up that makes sense to them. Hello prophesy.

In my own case, I joined the Mormon church based on the missionary discussions, and I do not recall the issue of facial hair being discussed. I also do not remember talking about black people of African descent not getting the priesthood. The missionaries did not tell me that the first vision actually had multiple, contradictory accounts, none of which were made until years after the event allegedly occurred. I was not told that I would be expected to take an oath to allow myself to be murdered while wearing a dress, fig leaf, bakers hat, and my brandy spanky new long magic underwear. I guess it slipped their mind. Or, were they concerned about giving me milk before meat? Maybe they thought that they would take me as I am and fix me later.

In any case, the situation raises another serious question. Why does anyone let another group of men tell them that they can or cannot grow a beard? Ok, I know that I live in the United States and that things are different around the world, but do we not take great pride in our liberty? Do we not talk about a long history of giving dictators the finger? What happened, did we lose some vital part of our anatomy that is associated with being an adult?

I have no particular training about psychology, but I suspect that when a group wants to control people, getting them to abide by a bunch of nit picky tiny rules is the way to do it. They need to make sure that the rules do not affect everyone, such as beards for men and ear piercing for women. Not all men have or want facial hair, and not all women want piercings. That way, most people do not care about a rule, because it does not affect them. Once the group is accustomed to tolerating stupid picky rules, the leaders can make rules that affect the children of same-sex couples. If the leader can get the group to go along with anything, he can get the group to go along with everything. Like I said, this is just a guess.

By taking the unofficial approach, church leaders can more easily deny that the rule in question was actually something that the church supported. In cases when documentation contradicts denial, current church leaders can attribute the rules to conditions related to leaders that only existed in the past. (Read the church essay about priesthood.) They can say, "It's in the past." (Gordon Hinkley)

I suspect that unofficial church rules lead to better manipulation of church members by leaders.

Thoughts?

I believe it is definitely about control.
The last Stake Conference I ever went to, the stake president gave a rather rambling talk about the importance of being willing to "comply" in the little things. He never used the word "conform" but the example he used was white shirts and ties for men. According to him if we could "comply" in appearance then it would show our willingness to obey the church in all things. His talk may not have been based on doctrine but woe unto any man who showed up for priesthood meeting in a blue shirt after that talk.

"unofficial church rules lead to better manipulation of church members by leaders"

I would agree with this. It also means individual members will be doing the enforcement via peer pressure as they try to out righteous each other. Less work for the leaders, sense of superiority for the uber-TBM, win win from their perspective.

Yep, control. I had a family member say that if the prophet told him not to eat peaches, he would never again eat peaches.

It is all about total control regarding every aspect of your life. I call it "mental manipulation". The key word is "allow". For example, prisoners are "allowed" to go outside within the confines of the prison yard for air and exercise every so often. Or a child is allowed a treat for finishing homework, or whatever. At work, we were allowed to use the restroom, but if it seemed to be too long that you were gone from your post, you would be questioned why you gone so long.

This is a very good topic because in the outside world, anything that is not in writing can not be enforced (like street signs, statutes, company policies). If a Human Resources department publishes a new rule, everyone who works for the company has to comply with that rule. If HR publish a rule that is illegal or immoral, that can get the company in to trouble. And they can't enforce compliance if something is not in writing. In the mormon church, many rules and docterines are taught from the pulpet, but are not put in to writing. That is what allows generations of mormons to believe that somehow they can obtain their own goodhood (not to disparage that belief). Then Gordon Hinkley tells Dan Rather on network televised Sixty-Minutes "I don't know that we teach that". What? Was Gordon Hinkley ashamed of that belief? Was the belief false? Yet the church allowed it to be taught openly for several generations. Here is the real question, and we all know the answer to this one: what would happen to a church member who openly teaches that Brigham young was a fallen prophet, and a racist? So why is it that you are allowed to teach some false things in the mormon church, but not other false things? Why didn't the church step-in and correct this 'mortal men becoming gods' teaching hundreds of years ago if it is not correct? Why won't they admit to it now if it is correct? The best we get when the church is pressed publicly for answers are pages of essays on the topic with double-speak and generalities that do not clarify anything. This is how cults function. Why do they not say in the essay on "Becoming Like God", either "No God is always the only God and you have no potential to be this kind of God, ever" or "Yes, if you do the right things, you can become just like our God now. You will get your own planet, your own universe, unlimited posterity, and more". Had Gordon Hinkley never contemplated the idea previously when Dan Rather asked him that question, and been innocently caught off-guard? Or was he hiding the truthful answer to that question? Why was he dishonest with the television audience?

If I were still in the church now, I would feel compelled to grow a beard and mustache. If they had a problem with it, I would escalate the issue if necessary just to see what happens. Maybe that'll get you out of some callings. Maybe I am not worthy of being called to scrub toilets, because I have a beard and do not pay tithing.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2019 12:42PM by azsteve.

Well, there's the rub. They won't ex you for having a beard, but, depending on the ass-hat in charge at the time, you may not be allowed to have certain callings, which puts you lower on the righteousness scale. Now everyone can give you the evil eye and treat you as a less-than, your wife and kids included. You get the social pressure without the need for a specific written rule. And, if you complain, they will say you are not following your leader and god is giving him specific revelations just for you.

I like this topic. If you want to see unwritten rules that force conformity, on steroids, spend some time working full time in CES (27 years for me).

It drives you nuts (paranoia) when you're in the grinder experiencing it. Because it seems every other day you get "counseled" about something you did wrong, not because it's a well established commandment, but because it's something a leader said 100 years ago, 1 year ago, or a week ago in a conference.

It results in a million unwritten rules floating around, with you trying to remember them fearing a misstep, while flinching every time the telephone rings, or someone tells you, "Bro Clark I need to talk to you!" You feel beaten and utterly defeated; yet for some really gullible ones like I was for a time, you promise yourself to "BE BETTER". (And of course your well intentioned resolution is broken and your feel worthless - more self incrimination.)

And if you are prone to guilt and self shaming, it really makes for a crappy existence.

GA's must know about the phenomenon, and must use it to "keep members in line."

Interesting, because it always seemed to me CES was the source of most of the faux doctrine floating around the church. So many seminary and Institute teachers seemed eager so show they knew deep stuff the rest of us didn't, or that they were more pious.

YES!

"guilt and self shaming"

An environment which fosters the growth of such can leave a person so riven with guilt that the rare respite from it is itself guilt-inducing.

On the Treadmill to Zion, guilt shall be pervasive and continuous.

the uncertainty of 'the unwritten order of things' is weaponized, No Doubt about that.

Good topic Lowpriest. The principle you are talking about is understood by those who seek political power as well. I can't remember where I read about this but years ago I read about a study/experiment that was conducted where they put up signs in neighborhoods introducing something that people found intrusive and hampering their freedoms. They found that if they put up little signs that drew less attention, there was much less resistance from the local residence than when they put up a big sign. Once the people accept the intrusive "new rules" there was little resistance.

In my area the local police dept. put " An International Accredited Agency" on the side of the police cars in shadow grey lettering. It drew little attention and hardly anyone noticed but if it had been put in bold black lettering it most likely would have garnered more negative attention. To me, putting that statement on the side of our local police departments cars represent an erosion of our local sovereignty. I don't care what the internationals think, the police are accountable to and answer to those in the local community only.

I agree with OP and almost everyone else who has responded. I personally think it's total bullshit. Anything a church cares enough to make official and put in writing is fair game for those adults who freely choose to participate in the religion. Sending out representativess to teach other minutiae and leaving it to those present to decide if it's truly church teaching but just not in writing or simply the agenda of the presenter is absolutely bogus and quite dangerous as well.

I had relatively few arguments with my dad, but one of them was about non-white shirts and facial hair. I needed to remain enrolled in BYU because it would have required an additional year of undergrad work to go elsewhere, plus I had free tuition at BYU, so I went along with BYU's grooming rules until I had obtained my B.S., but I ditched white shirts immediately after my mission. My dad and I almost came to blows over it. Now my second-oldest brother, who recently finished a stint as a stake prez in Happy Valley, is sporting facial hair.

The same brother nearly got himself injured by my dad when dad was a mission president and my brother was a badass teen. My brother had a friendly relationship with a couple of mishies who lived in an apartment near the mission home. The mishies brought an investigator to Sacrament Meeting. My brother, trying to be funny, quietly told the investigator to ask the mishies about polygamy. When it happened and my brother was outed as the culprit, my dad would have beaten my brother had my mom not intervened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2019 04:09PM by scmd1.

...monkey see, monkey do = group think = the unofficial Church control mechanism.

What KenC referred to: "you promise yourself to "BE BETTER""

It is so strange but until I joined I had never heard this phrase, then when I was in I heard people saying they would "try to do better" or "Try to be better" all the time.

I just think it is strange that this seems to be a Mormon phrase or thought that outside people would never say...

Isn't this how the W.O.W. became increased in importance to the point where it was once a suggestion for health to something that keeps you out of the temple.

If you read in J.O.D. You case see from leader's writings that a lot of people were harrassing eachother over tea and tobacco, etc. The leaders at that time warned against judging people over it.

Then given time, its now a commandment. The leaders got up and basically said if you aren't doing this you don't love God and are weak and aren't worthy.

So yeah, give it ten years and it will be a commandment.

Sure, the unwritten rules killed me all the time. I did everything wrong what I never knew.

Ever get flak for bringing caffeinated drinks to a ym activity?

Guilty- I brought Sunkist and it was a BIG deal. "Ew, who bought that? Nasty!"

I also brought the wrong brand of regular potato chips because it supported a beer company.

How about using your left hand to grab a piece of bread because the way the sacrament tray was passed?

Using a visual aid to make your SM talk more interesting?

How about thinking that playing a brass instrument during SM for a special music arrangement really infuriates God?

Did you know that not using the fossils' middle initials during gospel doctrine was disrespectful?

Did you know that church class prayers can't be said sitting down or standing at your seat. Oh no! Must be said at the front of the class or Heavenly Father won't acknowledge your prayer!

I could go on and on, but I think everyone remembers the nonsense that determined if you were a TBM.

messygoop Wrote:

> Ever get flak for bringing caffeinated drinks to a
> ym activity?
>
> Guilty- I brought Sunkist and it was a BIG deal.
> "Ew, who bought that? Nasty!"

When my dad was a mission president, he filled in for our ward's bishop who was ill that week in making the requisite trip up the hill to Girls' Camp. At that time in our stake, the girls in each ward camped together in units. It was a tradition for the bishops of each ward to show up on Wednesday night with dinner for the girls. Because our mom was there as an assistant director, and because it was easier than picking up dinner for us and worrying about what mischief we might get into in his absence, he took my brother and me along for the trip. The girls were all gaga over my brother, who was something of a heartthrob. I was ten, and the girls could not have cared any less that I was there.

As I recall, my dad brought KFC, and he ran into a supermarket and grabbed pop. In his ignorance, he picked up Sunkist orange pop. This was long before the church became so liberal regarding cold caffeine. At first everyone was horrified, but then, once he opened one and drank it, everyone else laughed it off and did the same. Because he was semi-important, it was deemed to be OK. (I suspect that, even had it been beer that he brought to drink, most of those present would have done the same as long as he opened and drank it first. Monkey see, monkey do.) If he hadn't been a mission president or at least a bishop, he, too, would have been vilified. Sometimes it's not what you do but who you are that dictates the reaction of the Mormons to any given action.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2019 06:05AM by scmd1.

Back in the day, wore a pantsuit to the stake NewYear's dance. Was asked to leave. Later, the SP's daughter came in a pantsuit. Not a word was said.