Why Standards And Their Foundation Matter

Imagine we have a girl named "Jill", who just graduated with a degree in business administration. Jill wants to open her own dance club in town. After leasing the building and buying the equipment, Jill ponders the question of grooming standards. Specifically, Jill doesn't like men with large beards and would prefer they weren't allowed in her club. Now, small beards are acceptable to Jill, but she feels that guys with big beards should be barred from entering.

This, of course, brings up a problem: How does she differentiate between 'small' and 'big' beards?

Fortunately, Jill has a second degree in electrical engineering and invents a small device which utilizes the latest in digital wave radar technology to scan a person's face and report back the exact number of hairs within a beard. Jill then decides that 500 hairs will be the dividing line between 'small' and 'big' beards, meaning every guy will be scanned by her device and anyone reading 500 or lower will be permitted to enter, while those higher than 500 will not.

After the grand opening, things proceed smoothly for a time. Then one night, "Jason" arrives at the club sporting a modest sized beard. Unfortunately for Jason, the reading on Jill's beard scanner reads 501, and Jill says Jason cannot enter. Jason is persistent about entering, though, (Jill's club had become the 'cool' place to go to in town, you see) and argues that his 501-hair beard is 'just about the same' as an acceptable 500-hair beard ("If it weren't for the machine, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference", Jason says).

Jill ponders this situation, and realizes that she has two primary choices:

1) Allow Jason to enter, since he has a point, the difference between a 501 hair beard and a 500-hair beard is miniscule and it's not likely anyone could tell the difference..

or 2) Stay true to her standard and say a 501-hair beard is still 'too big'.

Let's discuss Jill's two choices. The pitfalls of making the first choice should be obvious. If she allows Jason to enter with a 501 hair beard, what happens if "David" who's behind him in line has a 502-hair beard and also demands to enter ("The difference between a 502-hair beard and a 501-hair beard is also miniscule," he'd say, "so if you let him enter you should also let me enter.") If Jill allows him to enter by the same logic, then of course "Jim" with his 503-hair beard and "Brandon" with his 504-hair beard will say the same thing, and before you know it, Jill is accepting guys with larger and larger beards; just the thing she was trying to avoid.

Put simply, a flexible standard is not a standard at all.

Spencer W. Kimball shared a ancient fable in his book "The Miracle of Forgiveness" about the danger of flexible standards:

"[A] camel and his owner were traveling across the desert sand dunes when a wind storm came up. The traveler quickly set up his tent and moved in, closing the flaps to protect himself from the cutting, grinding sands of the raging storm. The camel was of course left outside, and as the violent wind hurled the sand against his body and into his eyes and nostrils he found it unbearable and finally begged for entrance into the tent.

"'There is room only for myself,' said the traveler.

"'But may I just get my nose in so I can breathe air not filled with sand?' asked the camel.

" 'Well, perhaps you could do that,' replied the traveler, and he opened the flap ever so little and the long nose of the camel entered. How comfortable the camel was now! But soon the camel became weary of the smarting sand on his eyes and ears, and he was tempted to ask again:

" 'The wind-driven sand is like a rasp on my head. Could I put just my head in?'

"Again, the traveler rationalized that to acquiesce would do him no damage, for the camel's head could occupy the space at the top of the tent which he himself was not using. So the camel put his head inside and the beast was satisfied again-but for a short while only.

" 'Just the front quarters,' he begged, and again the traveler relented and soon the camel's front shoulders and legs were in the tent. Finally, by the same processes of pleading and of yielding, the camel's torso, his hind quarters and all were in the tent. But now it was too crowded for the two, and the camel kicked the traveler out into the wind and storm" (Miracle of Forgiveness, pg 215-216)

The lesson is: a flexible standard that can be moved WILL be moved eventually, and afterwards it will be almost impossible to move back. A person who wishes to keep a strict standard but keeps accepting more and more 'border line' cases will soon find that his/her standard has 'moved' quite a bit from where it started.

After pondering for a short time, Jill reaches this conclusion herself, and decides to make choice #2--the only logical one to make in her mind. Jason grumbles about it but leaves, and the problem has been solved.

Or has it?

Let's discuss Jason's reasoning for a second. What exactly is the difference between a 501-hair beard and a 500-hair beard? True, it's one greater, but a 500 hair beard is also one greater than a 499-hair beard. What's so special about 501-hair beards that makes them the dividing line between 'acceptable' and 'not acceptable'? Where did this number '500' come from anyway?

The answer: NOWHERE. The number '500' Jill picked for her standard is completely arbitrary. She could have picked 400, or 600, or 467 for that matter, and the end result would be the same. There's no clear dividing line for beard size that can be rationally used to make a 'black-and-white' decision such as entrance to a dance club.

Jill's real problem is this: She's trying to have it both ways. She wants to accept certain beards into her club but not others when there's no clear dividing line between the two. Jason's reasonable question, "Why 500? Why not 501? What's the difference?" cannot be sensibly answered by Jill, since the standard she set for herself is arbitrary, and not founded on any real principle.

This is the 'Beard Principle' in essence: trying to arbitrarily define a clear, black-and-white distinction between two or more parts of a whole where no clear distinction exists.

If Jill had decided that NO beards at all were allowed in her club, would we run into the same problem? No, we wouldn't. If Jill said NO beards whatsoever, and Jason had a beard of one hair (remember, this is just a thought exercise) and argued, "My 1-hair beard is just one hair higher than your standard of zero. It's just about the same...you should let me enter.", Jill has an easy answer. A one-hair beard is still a beard and there's a big difference between having a beard and having no beard. In other words, the difference between 0 and 1 is fundamentally different than the difference between 500 and 501, and the same 'camel' argument doesn't apply.

In Jill's case, she'd have been better off setting either all beards or no beards whatsoever as her standard. Her attempt at making an arbitrary distinction between 'good' and 'bad' beards will only cause problems and confusion unless she can come up with a legitimate and defensible distinction between the two.

Lost you yet? Here are some specific examples of the 'Beard Principle' in action...

Example #1: Imagine we have a church member named "John". John decides that his personal standard says drinking 'a little bit' of alcohol is okay. Not 'a lot' of alcohol, of course, but just 'a little bit'. Of course, the question now is: how to define the difference between 'a lot' and 'a little bit'. Suppose John, being systematic, decides that drinking exactly 67.8 milliliters or less per day counts as 'a little bit', while above that limit is 'a lot'. Suppose also that John invents a machine which detects the exact amount of alcohol in any drink so he will always know. Now suppose when drinking one day with friends, John finds that the new drink his friend offered contains 67.9 milliliters. As with Jill, John is left with a choice. 67.9 milliliters is just about the same as 67.8, and it's doubtful his body could tell the difference. John decides, though, to remain true to his 'standard' and will only drink 67.8 milliliters for the day.

Problem: Is there a difference between 67.8 and 67.9? No more than the difference between 67.7 and 67.8. Is there a justifiable reason for setting 67.8 as the 'standard'? Is there some fundamental change in John's body as a result of drinking 67.9 that doesn't exist with 67.8? Why 67.8, instead of 65, or 70, or 120? Again, this 'standard' is arbitrary. John, like Jill, is trying to have it both ways, saying 'a little bit is acceptable even though more is not' without a clear distinction between where 'acceptable' ends and 'not acceptable' begins.

Example #2: "Jennifer's" personal standards include watching some R-rated movies, but not the 'bad' ones, of course.

Problem: What's the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' R-rated movies? Suppose Jennifer quantifies her standard and says movies that contain 27 swear words or less are 'okay', but 28 or more is not. Is there a fundamental difference between hearing profanity 27 and 28 times?

Example #3: "Mary" believes some pre-marital sex is okay, just as long as you're not 'promiscuous'.

Problem: And the definition of 'promiscuous' is...? Having sex X number of times with Y different guys per month? Where is Mary going to set her 'standard' for X and Y? How big does X or Y have to get before it's 'unacceptable'? If Mary's reached her 'limit' on the 28th and decides to wait a few days to sleep with her next boyfriend until the 1st of the month, does this make her more 'righteous'?

Example #4: "Jeff" lives in an apartment complex where the curfew for having members of the opposite sex in your apartment is midnight. Jeff and his girlfriend, though, stay after for ten or fifteen minutes nightly, thinking "that's not so bad".

Problem: Okay, Jeff, defend yourself. How late do you have to stay after curfew before it becomes 'bad'? 30 minutes? 60 minutes? Where do you draw the line?

Hopefully, the 'Beard Principle' makes more sense now. (I'm sure you can think of other examples yourself). Here's another example, with much more serious consequences than the others:

Example #5: An infant up to and including the minute he is born is judged to be a non-living mass of tissue attached to the mother's body which can be aborted at any time according to the mother's will. An infant from the minute he is born onward cannot be disposed of or even mistreated without serious criminal charges being brought against the mother.

Problem: What happens while traveling from the uterus to the outside world that suddenly causes the baby to become 'alive'? Does cutting the umbilical cord suddenly thrust the 'spark of life' into the baby? What specific physiological differences are there between a baby one hour before his birth and one hour after that lead to such a drastic change in legal standing.

This issue is even more arbitrary than the other examples because the date of birth can be anytime between seven and 9 1/2 months after conception, leading to the philosophically puzzling case of two babies conceived on the same date with one being born a month early where one baby has full legal status as a 'person' and one does not DESPITE HAVING REACHED EXACTLY THE SAME STATE IN BODILY DEVELOPMENT.

Recently lawmakers have banned certain third-term abortion procedures; a compromise of sorts between those who want abortion banned entirely and those who want free reign throughout all nine months. This compromise, though, only confuses the issue by moving the arbitrary line of division from nine months to six months. The same questions remain: why six months? What happens at the six month stage of development that suddenly turns a lifeless mass of organic tissue into a 'person'? What's the difference between a six month old fetus and a five month 29 day old fetus? Obviously, a microscopic embryo immediately after fertilization doesn't look much like a 'person', but simple logic says if you insist something at stage A of development is not a person, but at stage B is a person, then somewhere between A and B must be a line where the non-person / person transformation takes place. So, pro-choice people, where is that line? This is a clear 'Beard Principle' example of arbitrary distinctions between two groups with no foundation.

In the Doctrine & Covenants we read: "I, the Lord, cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (D&C 1: 31, see also Alma 45:16). Obviously the Lord knows some sins are worse than others. But He is not able nor willing to draw an arbitrary line on the scale of sin and say, "Everything on this side of the line are 'small' sins and we'll still give you the blessings of heaven if that's all you've committed, but everything on THAT side are 'big' sins and won't be forgiven." Sin is sin, in other words, and "no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven" (Alma 11:37). Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can all be cleansed from our sins if we repent, but the Lord can't and won't make any distinction between 'acceptable' sins and 'unacceptable' ones. Perfection is the only acceptable result.

Why is the Beard Principle important? Because quite often people do exactly that: divide sins (or amounts of one sin) into 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' groups and then justify their actions by saying they are within the 'acceptable' range. The logic for some people seems to be: as long as a 'worse' sin than mine exists, my sin is okay. ("Sure, that guy does {insert sin here}, but he's still a 'good' person. I mean, it's not like he's KILLED anyone or anything...") What's more, vague standards without a concrete foundation can end up being pushed further and further when situations arise that challenge the notion of what is acceptable and what is just slightly beyond acceptable (as in the camel story above).

This isn't to say all issues can be strictly defined as black or white (either you can do ALL of it, or you can't do ANY of it). Many cannot. Judgment calls will have to be made in many areas of life. The Beard Principle does not say drawing lines of judgment regarding a certain issue is inherently wrong. Instead, it simply says standards aren't really standards unless they're founded on something concrete.

In the examples listed above, Jason may decide (Word of Wisdom issues aside) his dividing line for alcohol consumption is the legal intoxication limit for his state. Jennifer may decide that movies that are rated R only because of female nudity are acceptable for her, while others are not. Both of these standards (while still morally debatable, of course) at least make sense in some way and are founded on a somewhat concrete distinction rather than something random and illogical. The key is when a morally ambivalent situation arises, ask yourself "Do I have a legitimate reason for thinking this is acceptable behavior, or am I just trying to have it both ways, allowing myself to be 'a little bad' as long as I avoid being 'really bad'."