I’m grateful to be with you today. Regrettably, Sister Eyring cannot join us, per doctor’s orders. She has a broken foot, which is healing but cannot yet bear any weight. She sends her regrets and her love.
Building on the preparations you and I have made on the devotional discussion board, today we will explore the university’s standards of personal honor. In particular, we will focus on the standards of dress and grooming.
I hasten to say that this is not an easy topic for me. Like you, I take pride in monitoring my own behavior. I don’t naturally respond well when someone tells me to change my preferences and habits.
In fact, there’s a line in BYU-Idaho’s Dress and Grooming policy that actually gets to me a bit. It is this statement: “Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extreme styles.”[1] Just what is that supposed to mean? To quote Curly, one of the Three Stooges, “I resemble that remark.” [2]
It’s possible that you feel the same way about some points of the university’s Honor Code. Particularly when we think that we’re already living above the world’s standards, sacrificing our natural preferences and perhaps even paying the price socially, it stings to be told that we’re not doing enough.
In fact, our general level of conformance to the BYU-Idaho Dress and Grooming Standards is heartwarmingly high. Every one of us is making at least some sacrifice that wouldn’t be required elsewhere. Yet we can all do better, and some of us need to make changes quickly.
As we confront this reality, it helps to remember that there’s more to the dress and grooming standards than simply honoring the commitment we made when we came to BYU-Idaho. These standards, approved by inspired leaders, have been given for wise purposes, based on long experience and a heartfelt desire to bless us.
To see that, let’s take a step back and consider the things Heavenly Father and the Savior desire for us. First and foremost, They want us to be one with Them. That is the greatest blessing They can offer.
To help us achieve that oneness, Heavenly Father and the Savior invite us to be one with ourselves. In other words, They encourage us to be single-minded, by keeping our actions consistent with the sacred covenants we have made and the commandments we have promised to obey. [3]
Knowing how hard it is to do that alone, Heavenly Father and the Savior further encourage us to be one with our fellow Saints. The Savior taught this principle when He said, “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” [4]
Importantly, Heavenly Father and the Savior also warn us to separate ourselves from the world. This principle was taught repeatedly by the Apostle Paul.
He saw the spiritual price paid by Church converts who attempted to maintain their worldly traditions and friendships. [5]
Paul observed this problem time and again. Like the prophets and apostles of our day, he recognized that the adversary slyly encourages us to allow gaps to open between us and our sacred covenants. The adversary also tries to create gaps between us and our fellow Saints. He does this with a typically double-minded argument.
On the one hand, he tempts us with the thought that we need to be popular with the popular crowd. Winning their approval, we are encouraged to believe, will make us happier.
Yet, simultaneously, we are tempted to think that we need to be unique, to be our own man or woman. According to this logic, being happy requires being different, so as to stand out from the crowd. Of course, the only thing these contradictory, worldly temptations have in common is a tendency to separate us from our covenants, our fellow Saints, and ultimately our Heavenly Father and the Savior.
Let’s look at a case of this kind of contradictory temptation. It is a true story that President Henry B. Eyring knew well when he first came to Rexburg in the early 1970s. In the preceding decade, the 1960s, the world had changed profoundly. In the early Sixties, economic standards of living began to increase as never before. So did the number of people going to college.
At the same time, respect for authority and tradition declined, particularly among young people. Many college campuses became hotbeds of protest.
The targets of protest included not only the unpopular Vietnam War but also traditional standards of dress, grooming, and morality. Confident, self-styled intellectuals preached slogans such as “Think for yourself” and “Do your own thing.”
I was a little boy at the time, but I remember the long hair, short skirts, and bare feet. I also remember the cracked windows in my father’s office at Stanford, where he worked as a professor.
His office happened to be above the main sidewalk favored by rock-throwing student demonstrators. When I asked why the university didn’t fix the windows, he said, “The maintenance people won’t replace the windows until summer, because the demonstrators will just break them again.”
I knew also what was going on in nearby San Francisco, which had drawn “hippies” from across the country.
These carefree vagabonds hitchhiked west, particularly in June and July of 1967, which was dubbed “The Summer of Love.” Inspired by intellectuals who declared the need for a social revolution, many of the hippies came with high-minded ideals, such as peace and brotherhood. But many were also tempted by the promise of free rock concerts, free food, and so-called free love.
In the beginning, “The Summer of Love” made good on some of its promises. The free concerts generally lived up to their billing, and indigent travelers could find some free food and many temporary sexual partners.
New types of mind-altering drugs were also readily available. Some of the drugs were distributed by organized criminals, such as the Hells Angels.
But the free samples were sometimes impure, leading to accidental overdoses. And once customers were hooked, the drugs were no longer free.
You can imagine what happened. Before the self-styled social innovators knew it, “The Summer of Love” descended into the Autumn of Addiction and the Winter of Destitution.
High-minded social revolutionaries, initially proud of their individuality, found themselves alone and helpless. Faster than any imagined, the unfettered freedom they sought turned to enslavement.
You may have heard the warning “When you pick up one end of a stick, you also pick up the other end.” That is a true and valuable metaphor which can save us from hasty, dangerous decisions. But our adversary is more subtle than that. He knows that we’re too smart to do something which produces an immediately painful consequence. Instead, he presents us with complex Rube Goldberg machines, so named for an inventor and cartoonist who specialized in illustrating the unexpected effects of apparently harmless actions.
Our fashion decisions can have such roundabout, unintended consequences. For instance, when we dress immodestly for the sake of drawing attention or stimulating attraction, we may not consider the possible secondary effects. In over-displaying our physical attractiveness to a potential spouse, we could unwittingly inspire temptation in him or her. We might also create hardship for third parties, such as the less confident friend we have brought on a double date.
Unintended consequences like these were a tragic hallmark of "The Summer of Love," which began with seemingly harmless long hair and loose morals, but ultimately ended with deep disappointment and, for some, addiction and even death. It’s hard to imagine such a descent into despair because the initial temptations are so subtle. Christian writer C. S. Lewis, speaking in the voice of his fictional devil Screwtape, said it this way: “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” [6] The prophet Nephi’s description of this devilish stratagem is similar but more frightening: “He leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.” [7]
Perhaps it was from this perspective that young President Henry B. Eyring saw the shaggy hair and miniskirts in the registration lines at Ricks College.
Compared to the protestors and hippies in California, these freshmen and sophomores looked more goofy than rebellious, at least to the casual observer.
But President Eyring evidently perceived more than that. As a young professor, he had witnessed the slow but steady slide of classroom dress and grooming standards in the Sixties. At the Harvard Business School, where he had been a graduate student in the late 1950s, the classroom standard was a white shirt and tie for men.
He was surprised to find that wasn’t the case when he moved to Stanford. There, opened-collar short-sleeved shirts were the norm, though hair was still closely cropped.
However, given the things going on to the north in San Francisco, those norms quickly changed. It wasn’t long before some of President Eyring’s MBA students looked as though they could blend in with the protestors who were breaking his office windows. Sadly, that was also true of many members of the Stanford Ward, whom he served as bishop.
Upon moving to Rexburg in 1971, President Eyring may have seen the potential for a similar slide in standards at Ricks. He knew that letting our guard down slightly, even in something as seemingly harmless as the length of one’s hair or skirt, is to start down a gently sloping path.
Moreover, President Eyring’s concerns about the long hair and short skirts of Ricks College students went beyond the fear that dress and grooming standards could naturally spiral downward. More concerning was the fact that these students had pledged to do better.
Though it might seem harmless, to knowingly disregard any aspect of this kind of pledge is to cross the line from good conscience and safety to rebellion and the danger that inevitably follows. The Holy Ghost’s influence is limited by such disregard of solemn promises. And to be without His guidance is to risk serious mistakes and sorrows.
It’s not hard to see how immodest dress and grooming take us in directions that can lead all the way to spiritual disaster. The same is true for even mild disregard of curfews. We could debate the time at which members of the opposite sex ought to leave a single-student apartment. But we know that every passing hour increases the spiritual risks. And we can sense real danger in even the first minute past curfew. The Holy Ghost can powerfully guide and warn righteous covenant-makers up until the approved curfew. Beyond that, though, we incur grave risks, our general righteousness and good intentions notwithstanding.
King David fell prey to a transgression on the other side of a rule that he might have rationalized as arbitrary, like short hair and curfew. The Lord had allowed the brave and valiant David to take many wives and concubines, as had been the case with Moses. [8]
David may have rationalized going further as a mere extension of uniquely approved behavior. But by deliberately violating the Lord’s prohibition of adultery, he lost everything in this life. [9]
Like David, the best of us are prone to spiritual lapses, notwithstanding the covenants we have made and our faith in the gospel. That is why the sacrament prayers include the word “always” in the charge to remember the Savior and His commandments. [10] For mortal beings, it is easier to do something always than to do it most of the time.
That sounds paradoxical, but you can see the truth of it. Suppose that a mission president decided to give his missionaries “Casual Fridays,” or that we covenanted to wear the temple garment only “most of the time.” For conscientious Saints, such vague, inconsistent standards would be confusing and worrisome. For the less conscientious, the result would be a hard-to-resist temptation to relax and move toward the standards of the world.
I have fallen prey to that temptation. In the late 1990s, I served as the director of the BYU MBA program.
On days when I hosted guests, such as the representatives of companies recruiting our graduates, I of course dressed as they did, in a suit and tie. But on other days, when I expected to interact only with students and fellow faculty members, I dressed more casually, enjoying the feeling of comfort and relaxation. I took confidence in my ability to bear testimony in the classroom and in personal interviews with students, my casual dress notwithstanding.
One day, though, I received a call from the assistant to BYU president Elder Merrill Bateman.
She told me that President Bateman wanted to see me in his office in less than an hour. I panicked. I knew that President Bateman, a General Authority, always dressed as such for work. I also knew that I didn’t have time to drive home to North Salt Lake, more than an hour away, to change my clothes.
My only option was to race to the nearby University Mall, where I bought a white shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes.
I also bought this necktie, paying more than I wanted. I arrived in President Bateman’s office barely on time, sweating. As you can imagine, that experience led me to raise my standards of dress to be fully ready for service at all times.
I wasn’t motivated solely by fear of looking out of place in the presence of Church leaders and senior business executives. The fact is that dressing up, even when it’s not required, creates performance advantages. You and I wouldn’t go to a job interview wearing shorts unless it were for a lifeguarding position.
We would dress for success, eager to convey respect and competence.
And the feeling would be similar even if we were just trying to help a friend on their big day. If we thought about it, we’d want a job interviewer to be impressed by the high standards of dress not just in the interviewing rooms but across the whole campus.
The same would be true of our efforts to impress a potential spouse; we wouldn’t risk conveying an attitude of laxness or provocativeness with true love in the balance. And if we were on a double date, we wouldn’t want our appearance to discourage or distract the date of a friend who is trying to make a good impression.
I’ve appreciated your recognition of these principles, as evidenced by comments on this week’s devotional discussion board. Now I’ll ask Dylan Davis to share some of the ideas he posted to the discussion board.
PRESIDENT EYRING: Dylan, I was impressed by your apparent change of heart about some of the dress and grooming standards. Can you explain that to us?
DYLAN DAVIS: In my time here, one of the problems I’ve had is shaving every day.
EYRING: I have the same problem.
DAVIS: Over my years here at BYU-Idaho, I’ve come to grow a great appreciation for those standards because as I sacrifice the things that I would like to do, I’m gaining a better future.
EYRING: That’s wonderful. Have you even felt some blessings in the near term, feelings of the Spirit or inspiration that have come to you, perhaps because you’ve made those sacrifices?
DAVIS: I would say the one blessing that I have gained is when I look to the future I feel more prepared to be in a better professional situation than showing up in farm clothing. I can dress in a suit and tie by myself.
EYRING: Thank you, Dylan. I’ll now ask Natalie Cramer to join me at the podium. Natalie, you told us about an interesting experience you had with regard to our curfew regulations. Can you explain that?
NATALIE CRAMER: I had a roommate who was dating a guy to whom she’s now married. I would usually go to bed before curfew, but sometimes I would stay up late finishing some assignments. I noticed that often times she was coming home after curfew, while she was dating the guy. For some time, I’d been feeling that I should talk to her about it. One night I was up finishing an assignment, and I heard her come through the door and start doing some things in the kitchen. I was still in my room. I believe I said a prayer—maybe out loud, maybe in my heart (I can’t remember)—to guide my words. I went out, and I talked to her and mentioned that I noticed that she had been coming home late and that I was concerned. I asked her why, and she said that they just lost time while they were together. So, I suggested that she could set some alarms on her phone to remind her—“It’s 11:45”—because they lived in the apartment across the parking lot or that I could even text her, if she wanted, just to remind her. And she said “Yeah.” So, she set some alarms, and we said a prayer together before we went to bed. She thanked me for being willing to reach out to her and help her with that.
EYRING: And there was a happy ending to the story.
CRAMER: Yes. They’re now married, and they have a baby.
EYRING: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Now I’d like to invite Professor Steve McGary to join me. I’ve been blessed to work with Brother McGary as a fellow university administrator and stake president. He currently serves as a stake patriarch.
Brother McGary, you’re willing to talk about an unusual experience that you had in 1972 with President Henry B. Eyring. Can you share that with us?
MCGARY: As the slide showed beforehand (of the registration line), when a student in that time period was registering, they had to show up in person in the Hart Building. We would walk in the mezzanine, the main hall of the Hart Building, and meet with administrators and the student body officers. At the end of the line was President Eyring. He would shake our hand and ask where we were from. He was very kind to us.
The January before I had returned from my mission and had enrolled in classes at Ricks College. I, of course had the dress and grooming standards of a missionary. But over time and during the summer break, my hair had gotten a little bit long. My sideburns were long, and perhaps my mustache had grown over the corners of my mouth. As I approached that line in the fall of ‘72, President Eyring shook my hand and warmly asked me where I was from. And then he looked me over, and he said, “Your sideburns are too long, and your hair is too long. Would you please fix that? And with a warm handshake, his hand on my back, he guided me to the exit and asked me to leave.
EYRING: And how did you feel about that?
MCGARY: At the time, I was probably ashamed, embarrassed, and maybe somewhat annoyed. My clothes looked good; I didn’t look like any of the pictures of the Summer of Love that you had up [on the screen previously]. But I was ashamed somewhat that the president of the college had to invite me to change.
EYRING: But there’s a happy ending to this story, a divine twist on what happened.
MCGARY: Obviously, to register I did correct my hairstyle. And a while later, I was invited to serve on the student council, where our main objective was to help the students on campus learn the dress and grooming standards and to abide by them.
EYRING: That’s wonderful. Heaven was in it. Thank you so much.
I appreciate the way we’ve been taught so well by these three great people. I want to compliment Brother McGary for the spiritual refining process to which he has submitted throughout his life. As a Ricks College student, he could have been resentful of the Honor Code’s prohibition of hair over the ears. And he could have taken offense at President Eyring’s confronting him in public. But, instead, he took the counsel to heart. Now, by virtue of his special calling and a lifetime of continually submitting to the Lord’s commandments and the promptings of the Spirit, Brother McGary has qualified to speak on behalf of Heavenly Father as a patriarch.
Though we may never receive that kind of priesthood role, each of us can qualify for personal revelation. The key is to be spiritually pure. The scriptures describe two ways in which we may achieve that purity. You can hear both ways referenced in a single verse of scripture in the Book of Mormon. The Savior gives this warning in 3 Nephi 18:18,
Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, ye must watch and pray always lest ye enter into temptation; for Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you, as wheat.[11]
This scripture, along with others like it, [12] teaches us that this world is a giant, divinely created classroom, perfectly designed for our learning. Our test is to choose good over evil, notwithstanding the veil of forgetfulness which fell on us at birth, making it hard to discern evil from good. The best way to pass that test is to heed the direction of prophets and the Holy Ghost, watching and praying to rise above temptation. As we do so, we can repent of past mistakes and avoid future ones, ultimately becoming both wise and pure.
But, as 3 Nephi 18:18 indicates, there is a second, much slower and more painful way to learn to discern evil from good. That is to heed the subtle lies of the adversary and to learn the hard way that seemingly small, harmless acts can have awful long-term consequences. Sadly, this is the way by which most people learn that wickedness never leads to happiness.
In teaching the Nephites, the Savior used the metaphor of wheat to help them understand this painful path to ultimately achieving wisdom and righteous desires.
Before harvested wheat can be consumed as food, each grain must be separated from the stalk that holds it up and the husk that encases it. This separation process, sometimes described in the scriptures as “sifting,” requires rubbing each grain of wheat nearly to the point of breaking it and then blowing away the stalks and husks, which together are called “chaff.”
Today, this work can be done at high speed by mechanical harvesters. But even the best of these threshing and sifting processes leaves a small fraction of chaff that clings to the wheat. I learned that painfully as a boy, when I worked on the farm of my home teacher, Brother Craig Moore.
During a wheat harvest when I was 11, I consented to be lowered into a nearly full granary, some 20 feet tall.
The granary was being filled through a hole in the top by a powerful auger that elevated and then showered down a heavy stream of grain.
All went well until the granary was nearly full. At that point, the relatively flat top of the granary prevented us from filling it to capacity, because the slope of the grain pile was steeper than the slope of the granary’s roof, creating empty spaces around the perimeter.
The solution, I learned to my chagrin, was for me to climb the ladder on the side of the granary, cautiously summit the top, and then lower myself through the round opening in the roof and onto the huge pile of grain.
With a shovel in hand, I was to spread the grain as it spewed from the auger, taking care not to become mired in what felt like quicksand.
As dangerous as this sounds, the job wasn’t too difficult. The unexpected liability, though, was the poor air quality in the granary. Along with the rain of wheat came small particles of chaff and dust. Before long I could barely see. I soon began to sneeze and struggle for breath. Fortunately, the job was done fairly quickly, and I was lifted out of the fully filled granary. But I continued to sneeze and gasp for breath all the way home, where I spent the next day in bed tranquilized by allergy medications.
From this painful experience, I can testify that even trace amounts of chaff may be suffocating, when allowed to accumulate. The lesson also applies, I think, to personal righteousness and spiritual health. If we cannot fully purge the spiritual chaff in our lives, it will be removed by the suffering that inevitably follows unworthiness. Like the Prodigal Son, we may have to “[come] to [ourselves]” in consequence of self-imposed sorrow. [13]
The much better approach is to work with the Lord to purify ourselves by living the highest personal standards of righteousness and, when necessary, quickly repenting of wrongdoing.
The BYU-Idaho Honor Code is designed to help us in that lifelong purification process. It’s not easy to submit to seemingly arbitrary rules, such as the length of one’s hair or pants. And it takes faith and forbearance to respond graciously to unexpected correction by a professor or peer, even when it’s clear that they have our best interests at heart.
It likewise requires spiritual maturity to recognize that lack of correction is not necessarily official acceptance of a dress or grooming violation. Even a deeply concerned passerby, such as your university president, may decide that it’s not the right moment to say, “Hello, Brother! No-shave November? In January?”
In those instances when correction does come, try to resist the temptation to take offense, whether the person who approaches you is a university employee, a Church leader, or a fellow student. Recognize that the person giving correction is concerned for you and is probably feeling anxious rather than powerful or self-righteous. Try to imagine such goodwill. And try to imagine the potential benefits of adhering to the particular standard you’ve been called on.
There is a natural temptation to deride some standards as “arbitrary.” In these cases, it helps to remember the remarkable response of Adam and Eve when the Lord gave them the law of sacrifice. Imagine them, their faces stained with sweat and the dust of the earth from which Adam’s body was created. The harvest is in, and it seems just enough to keep their family alive and healthy. The Lord then commands them to burn a portion of it. In response to this seemingly arbitrary rule, they obey without questioning. When, much later, an angel asks why they are risking sickness and even death, Adam replies meekly but majestically, “I know not, save the Lord commanded me.” [14]
Evidently, Heavenly Father sometimes requires apparently needless sacrifices to test us. But, in these cases, He is also allowing us to test His promises. Where there is a divine command, even a seemingly arbitrary or foolish one, there is always a divine reward to be had. Consider this counsel from President Henry B. Eyring:
Sometimes we will receive counsel that we cannot understand or that seems not to apply to us, even after careful prayer and thought. Don’t discard the counsel, but hold it close. If someone you trusted handed you what appeared to be nothing more than sand with the promise that it contained gold, you might wisely hold it in your hand awhile, shaking it gently. Every time I have done that with counsel from a prophet, after a time the gold flakes have begun to appear and I have been grateful. [15]
That kind of wise obedience was manifested by one of the young men you read about in President Eyring’s biography. You may recall that he was dismissed from school just one week before the end of winter semester for repeatedly refusing to cut his long hair. Rather than rebelling, this young man repented. In fact, he went to President Eyring’s office. President Eyring later recorded the experience in his journal:
With tears in his eyes he said, ‘Last night, after I’d felt repentance from confessing and asking forgiveness, I prayed and for the first time in my life felt my prayer answered.’ All that came from our having confronted him with his failure to keep a promise to cut his hair.[16]
The elements of the BYU-Idaho Honor Code, including the dress and grooming standards, have been approved by wise leaders for our good. Throughout this semester, each devotional speaker will give you a challenge related to their topic. My challenge is obvious: Let us be, in the words of Elder David A. Bednar, “quick to observe” and “prompt to watch and to obey.” [17] Let’s rebel against fashion fads and other forms of dependency. Let’s claim the safety and charity that flow from modesty.
The standards of the Honor Code are designed for our protection and ultimate triumph over our spiritual adversary. As we faithfully apply those standards in our lives, we gain power to recognize and transcend the clever temptations that might put us on a subtle downward path. He may temporarily bruise our heels, as the scriptures say, [18] but we can recognize and crush even the subtlest stratagems his head can concoct. In so doing, we can qualify for Heaven’s protection and guidance in all of our activities. Better still, we can have our hearts and natures changed as we qualify for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and draw closer to the Savior and our Heavenly Father.
May we be so blessed. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Notes
[1] “Dress and Grooming,” BYU-Idaho Student Honor Office, http://www.byui.edu/student-honor-office/ces-honor-code/dress-and-grooming; emphasis added
[2] Howard, M., Fine, L., Howard, J. L., Three Stooges (Comedy team), Sony Pictures Home Entertainment (Firm), & Columbia Pictures Corporation. (2007). The Three Stooges collection: Volume one. Culver City, Calif: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
[3] Matthew 6:24 and James 1:8
[4] Doctrine and Covenants 38:27
[5] 2 Corinthians 6:17
[6] C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 61
[7] 2 Nephi 26:22
[8] Doctrine and Covenants 132:38
[9] Bible Dictionary, “David.”
[10] Doctrine and Covenants 20:77
[11] 3 Nephi 18:18 (emphasis added)
[12] Abraham 3:25
[13] Luke 15:17
[14] Moses 5:6
[15] Henry B. Eyring, “Finding Safety in Counsel,” Ensign, May 1997, https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/05/finding-safety-in-counsel?lang=eng
[16] Robert I. Eaton and Henry J. Eyring, I Will Lead You Along: The Life of Henry B. Eyring (2013), 218
[17] David A. Bednar, “Quick to Observe,” BYU-Idaho Commencement, August 20, 2004
[18] Moses 4:21