When I served as an elder, we had a brother who wanted our opinion on his growing a beard. The PO, and older brother, felt that wearing beards was still considered to be a sign of "rebellion", pointing to the 1960s and 1970s when, in his estimation, people wore beards to signify their restless and rebellious attitude. Another elder was more in favor of beards, and my attitude was, what's the big deal? Let the guy wear one if he wants. In fact, it was even a shame that we were discussing such a matter. Also, we had nothing from the Society (such as the letter in this post) to assist us in making such a decision.
As it turns out, the brother moved away anyway, and the point became moot, at least at that particular time.
I'll say one thing, if he had decided to grow a beard, and stayed with our congregation, there is NO WAY he would have been extended privilages. It just would not have happened with the mind-set that prevailed among those elders.
Also, around that time, some younger brothers, a couple of yrs out of high school, were not wearing socks to the meetings. Their bare ankles could be seen when they would sit and cross the one leg over the other. Well, you guessed it, this became an issue, and the body of elders met to discuss it. It was decided that this look was overly casual and potentially offensive to others, so these brothers were told to wear socks or else risk not being assigned privilages. Again, one elder, the same one who had a more relaxed view on beards, was not concerned about the no-socks look. But the body decided otherwise. Personally, I felt that, while the look was a bit casual, it was, like the beard issue, not a big deal. But you'd be surprised...no, wait, you would NOT be surprised, lol, how many people made an issue out of such a thing.