Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Temple Grooming Standards

Recommended Posts

I recently received an email from our local temple presidency reminding us of grooming standards for ordinance and veil workers. In light of the recent conversation about white shirts, I found this particularly interesting. 

Quote

Dress and Grooming
Personal dress or grooming should not be a distraction to patrons or other temple workers. "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence."

Workers should come to the temple dressed in their cleanest and best Sunday-style clothing. "Keep your appearance suitable for a representative of the Lord."

In keeping with instruction given by the First Presidency, sister ordinance workers may wear one small pair of tasteful earrings if desired.

Hairstyles of both the brethren and the sisters should not be extreme. Brethren should follow the missionary standard of being clean shaven.

Shoes
We remind you of our request to follow the handbook policy regarding shoes. “Footwear should be dignified and appropriate for serving in the temple.  Athletic type shoes are not appropriate.  Personal dress or grooming should never be a distraction to others.”  (Temple Ordinance Procedures Handbook Page 3)

While I agree that individuals serving in the temple should be clean and well-groomed, these rules strike me as Pharisaical. 

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing? Or should temple patrons be encouraged to follow Elder Bednar's counsel to not be offended?

Is limiting jewelry to 1 set of earrings really important enough to warrant handbook instructions?

Why is being clean-shaven, which is obviously a modern policy, necessary for an individual to be a temple worker? 

Are white tennis shoes really so undignified that a handbook restriction is needed? Isn't it possible that temple workers may need the comfort and sturdiness of non-dress white shoes from time to time?

 

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

Share this post


Link to post

I take it that they want the temple workers to sort of be a wall flower. Since the temple workers are right at the front or involved, they just don't want the visual to distract from the spiritual. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recently received an email from our local temple presidency reminding us of grooming standards for ordinance and veil workers. In light of the recent conversation about white shirts, I found this particularly interesting. 

While I agree that individuals serving in the temple should be clean and well-groomed, these rules strike me as Pharisaical. 

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing? Or should temple patrons be encouraged to follow Elder Bednar's counsel to not be offended?

Is limiting jewelry to 1 set of earrings really important enough to warrant handbook instructions?

Why is being clean-shaven, which is obviously a modern policy, necessary for an individual to be a temple worker? 

Are white tennis shoes really so undignified that a handbook restriction is needed? Isn't it possible that temple workers may need the comfort and sturdiness of non-dress white shoes from time to time?

 

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

A person does not have to accept a calling as a temple worker. A person does not have to even get a temple recommend. So, why don't you poll those who have accepted the calls to see how they fell about it?

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

I have honestly never thought of this as all that pharisaical. I've been a temple worker for now approaching 4 years. In my head it's also balanced by our edict to Not cast attentions to patron dress or performance of the ordinance as much as possible (minus what's absolutely needed for the ordinances to be done relatively correctly). The grooming standards are simply a way to not draw attention to ourselves or things that are more worldly as we serve. When I was called (well, more like volunteered) I was led to the assumption that, like a mission, there would be some more expectations both in conduct and dress than the average calling. It didn't bother me and I could definitely differentiate between a calling as a worker and expectations any where else. 

 

Pharisee-ism is more a product of consistent rigidity in expectations, not a specific calling. It also is more tenable in specific populations...particularly if they're fairly homogenous and conservative in attitudes. That does not just apply to UT (for those about to say as much) I've seen that in TX. When I was down there I snuck in on my bro's mission prep and saw a moment of such with my old drake president who I've known to be not super flexible when it comes to perceived rules and regulations. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams

Share this post


Link to post

Years ago I used to crochet in SS and RS. I am first a touch learner and an audio learner last. I had a hard time concentrating in church where audio is sometimes the only method used in teaching. I picked a simple crochet item that didn't cause me to think and I listened much better.

Then I found I was distracting to some. Some were judgemental of me - even comenting in class how crocheting on Sunday was not keeping the Sabbath holy. I remember my face flaming red on that one. When I found that it would be distracting to a friend of mine who was a SS teacher I made it a matter of prayer.

Heavenly Father let me know that crocheting in class was perfectly fine and I had good reason to do it, but wouldn't it be good if I had the needs in mind of those that were distracted? Yes, they could work on themselves and they should, but if I cared about others I should really think about them as well.

So, I stopped crocheting in class. It was tough at first, but I feel Heavenly Father has blessed me with an extra measure of learning ability in those situations now because I put others first.

I am NOT saying the temple workers should not wear 2 earings or athletic shoes. We do need to help others not to judge and some feet (like mine) really need good shoes. It just goes both ways. If something is distracting to someone in a spiritual setting and it isn't a big deal to remove a pair of earings then I really should consider doing it, but others should be ok on things like this if I choose not to.

Edited by Rain

Share this post


Link to post

I find the grooming standards at the temples I've been to are on the highest order. The lawns are well manicured, the garden beds are weedless, the shrubs are pruned and the flowers are beautiful. 

Oh wait, do you mean the people in the temple?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recently received an email from our local temple presidency reminding us of grooming standards for ordinance and veil workers. In light of the recent conversation about white shirts, I found this particularly interesting. 

While I agree that individuals serving in the temple should be clean and well-groomed, these rules strike me as Pharisaical. 

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing? Or should temple patrons be encouraged to follow Elder Bednar's counsel to not be offended?

Is limiting jewelry to 1 set of earrings really important enough to warrant handbook instructions?

Why is being clean-shaven, which is obviously a modern policy, necessary for an individual to be a temple worker? 

Are white tennis shoes really so undignified that a handbook restriction is needed? Isn't it possible that temple workers may need the comfort and sturdiness of non-dress white shoes from time to time?

 

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

I haven't seen "rampant Pharisee-ism" within the LDS Church, and certainly not at temples, but maybe you have a different definition of pharisaism than I do.  Perhaps you could help me understand what that is.

As to the rule for temple workers, they do not apply to all temple workers (my closest friend is a temple ordnance worker and wears a full white beard on duty).  Most male temple patrons wear a white shirt & tie and nice slacks to the entrance, but it is not required, and they can have beards without any criticism.  Even the temple garb itself has a variety of options available for patrons, but I'm not sure that you are addressing patrons at all here.

Some temples I have been to have an annex separate from the temple where lockers (and restrooms) are available for travelers to store their street clothes and put on more appropriate clothing as patrons.  The temple is the great leveler, making all look quite equal, where a farmer and a banker both look just the same -- the opposite of pharisaism.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to the rule for temple workers, they do not apply to all temple workers (my closest friend is a temple ordnance worker and wears a full white beard on duty).  Most male temple patrons wear a white shirt & tie and nice slacks to the entrance, but it is not required, and they can have beards without any criticism.  

Is this exception up to the temple president?  I have had a friend who couldn't serve because of facial hair.  He wanted to shave, but had a severe reaction to shaving that would leave awful rashes.  He kept it nicely trimmed, but was told he had to shave it or he couldn't serve in the temple.  This was probably 5-8 years ago though so maybe exceptions are more recent or maybe like mission presidents, temple presidents sometimes make exceptions and other times don't.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh my gosh.

Is this really an issue in your life?

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rain said:

Years ago I used to crochet in SS and RS. I am first a touch learner and an audio learner last. I had a hard time concentrating in church where audio is sometimes the only method used in teaching. I picked a simple crochet item that didn't cause me to think and I listened much better.

Then I found I was distracting to some. Some were judgemental of me - even come ting in class how crocheting on Sunday was not keeping the Sabbath holy. I remember my face flaming red on that one. When I found that it would be distracting to a friend of mine who was a SS teacher I made it a matter of prayer.

Heavenly Father let me know that cro he tung in class was perfectly fine and I had good reason to do it, but wouldn't it be good if I had the needs in mind of those that were distracted? Yes, they could work on themselves and they should, but if I cared about others I should really think about them as well.

So, I stopped crocheting in class. It was tough at first, but I feel Heavenly Father has blessed me with an extra measure of learning ability in those situations now because I put others first.

I am NOT saying the temple workers should not wear 2 earing or athletic shoes. We do need to help others not to judge and some feet (like mine) really need good shoes. It just goes both ways. If something is distracting to someone in a spiritual setting and it isn't a big deal to remove a pair of earing then I really should consider doing it, but others should be ok on things like this if I choose not to.

Well said. Except I would add that there is a difference in seriousness between wearing more than one set of earrings and wearing athletic shoes, as the former has been denounced by the Church leadership for all occasions and the latter has not. Thus the former amounts to a blatant expression of disobedience. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, emeliza said:

Is this exception up to the temple president?  I have had a friend who couldn't serve because of facial hair.  He wanted to shave, but had a severe reaction to shaving that would leave awful rashes.  He kept it nicely trimmed, but was told he had to shave it or he couldn't serve in the temple.  This was probably 5-8 years ago though so maybe exceptions are more recent or maybe like mission presidents, temple presidents sometimes make exceptions and other times don't.

I don't know the answer to this. But I would point out that not everyone is capable of holding each and every calling in the Church. Circumstances having nothing to do with moral worthiness make some ineligible for certain callings. (Though I will admit I never thought I was capable of directing a ward choir until I got the calling. It uncovered talents I didn't know I had.)

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know the answer to this. But I would point out that not everyone is capable of holding each and every calling in the Church. Circumstances having nothing to do with moral worthiness make some ineligible for certain callings. (Though I will admit I never thought I was capable of directing a ward choir until I got the calling. It uncovered talents I didn't know I had.)

I don't mean to be inflammatory, but how this reads is if a person is called or asked to be a temple worker, on the condition of shaving, but they have a doctors statement explaining why they can't shave, the issue must be that they aren't capable of serving in this calling/assignment ?

I think that in the case of Robert F Smith, they had an exception that most do not get for whatever reason, especially since it is a requirement per the instructions noted in the OP.

Edited by emeliza

Share this post


Link to post

I know, years ago, one Temple President here told us no one was allowed to change back into their street clothes in the change room, it was just for washroom use and so we had to change at gas stations etc. Well, that rule never carried through to the next President. By the time you finish hearing the lecture you're changed anyways:rolleyes:

 

#whyarethrelockersinherethen

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recently received an email from our local temple presidency reminding us of grooming standards for ordinance and veil workers. In light of the recent conversation about white shirts, I found this particularly interesting. 

While I agree that individuals serving in the temple should be clean and well-groomed, these rules strike me as Pharisaical. 

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing? Or should temple patrons be encouraged to follow Elder Bednar's counsel to not be offended?

Is limiting jewelry to 1 set of earrings really important enough to warrant handbook instructions?

Why is being clean-shaven, which is obviously a modern policy, necessary for an individual to be a temple worker? 

Are white tennis shoes really so undignified that a handbook restriction is needed? Isn't it possible that temple workers may need the comfort and sturdiness of non-dress white shoes from time to time?

 

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

Since this instruction is from your temple president to you as a worker, I think your questions are best settled between you and him. But one question and a couple of observations:

Where did the instructions say this was about not offending others? In any case, of course people should leave their inclinations to be offended at the door, and carry a demeanor that is slow to be offended once inside.

Many of the handbook instructions were written because people kept asking the same question. Instructions and policies are subject to change, and also exceptions and agency apply (notice how often “should” is used). I don’t think this a good example of Pharisaism.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, emeliza said:

Is this exception up to the temple president?  I have had a friend who couldn't serve because of facial hair.  He wanted to shave, but had a severe reaction to shaving that would leave awful rashes.  He kept it nicely trimmed, but was told he had to shave it or he couldn't serve in the temple.  This was probably 5-8 years ago though so maybe exceptions are more recent or maybe like mission presidents, temple presidents sometimes make exceptions and other times don't.

Yes, that is up to the temple president in such cases.  Your friend might consider bringing a note from his dermatologist (a Mormon dermatologist would be great) about his condition.  My friend is so close to being the image of God or his son (in both looks and behavior) that the mission president may have been bowled over.  Or, perhaps it was the Holy Spirit allowing it.  If you knew my friend, you'd understand.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, emeliza said:

Is this exception up to the temple president?  I have had a friend who couldn't serve because of facial hair.  He wanted to shave, but had a severe reaction to shaving that would leave awful rashes.  He kept it nicely trimmed, but was told he had to shave it or he couldn't serve in the temple.  This was probably 5-8 years ago though so maybe exceptions are more recent or maybe like mission presidents, temple presidents sometimes make exceptions and other times don't.

The standards come from the Temple Department and are enforced by visits to the temple presidency.  We even had candy stashed in a co-ordinator's desk for use during off-times sitting around waiting for a veil, and that was a violation and was stopped.

As you have noticed, there are a lot of old people who serve in the temple.  Have you seen handicapped people in wheel chairs or walkers being ordinance workers?

Have you ever thought about why that is?

Temple WORK is actual work.  As an ordinance worker you may have the opportunity to stand on your feet virtually in one spot for an hour with your arms outreached, giving blessings to one individual after another, repeating a memorized ordinance again and again virtually without ceasing, for an hour or sometimes more.  There are physical things to do in presenting the endowment which include walking quickly so as not to slow down the company and distract others, moving in tight places where large people may not fit, climbing stairs quickly, etc.   There are no places to stash a cane if you use one, sometimes you have to use two hands in order to help a member clothe, etc. Walkers are cumbersome and do not fit between people.  If you have a physical problem in which odors may be a problem, including bad breath, or other distractions, nail fungus etc which might repel others from shaking hands if that is a medically justified problem or not- those are all distractions.

Having a cold and not shaking hands in church for example, cannot happen in the temple.   As a veil worker, if you are very large and your stomach protrudes against the veil, that is not desirable. 

Unfortunately there are some people you do not want to be physically close to because of some medical condition even if that condition is totally unharmful to others.   It is a reality of life.  If you look at someone you have to touch and at first recoil even unconsiously, that person is not a good candidate to be a temple worker, because that person may be called to lay their hands on your head, shake your hand, pass closely between you and others, etc.  If even for a second you have to think- "Yuck- oh I guess it will be all right" THAT is a distraction that should not happen .  Your mind should be on the ordinance- not the worker.  We are to be as "plain vanilla" as possible- cogs in the machine.

Temple worker are essentially actors in a play.  Not everyone can be or should be an actor; I cannot imagine a person in a walker being cast as Agent 007 unless it was a comedy.

As Scott said, not everyone is called to every calling, and there is a reason for that.  I cannot imagine a deaf person who uses only sign language being a Bishop in a speaking ward for example.  He may be a wonderful choice in a deaf ward where I who am not deaf could NOT serve.  An English only speaker should not be a Bishop in a Spanish speaking Ward.

This is all just common sense

A long answer- but I really wanted to go through the long explanation so that perhaps you could see the full implications of your friend's problem.  Even just standing out having a beard when no one else has one and making people wonder "Oh- did they change the standards?" would be a distraction.

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

I hope that some day soon the need to be clean shaven for any calling goes away. I think it's as silly--and even sometimes as emotionally cruel--as it would be for the church to require women to all cut their hair to chin length before they could hold certain callings. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hope that some day soon the need to be clean shaven for any calling goes away. I think it's as silly--and even sometimes as emotionally cruel--as it would be for the church to require women to all cut their hair to chin length before they could hold certain callings. 

I agree it is pretty arbitrary.   I think the standard is that representatives of the church or Lord should look "conservative"

In the 19th century that meant beards, and the hippies grew beards so beards were no longer conservative.

Now anything goes, but the paradigm still is at least at church that beards "look like you are a hippie".   Same thing goes for tattoos, piercings etc.  The norm will probably have to change until whatever it is looks "conservative".  I had a huge mustache grow when I was 16 and did not shave until I held a ward calling of Ward Mission Leader, and in that stake, I had to shave it off to conform to missionary standards.

I shaved it off as a sacrifice and for the sake of obedience which helped me to learn those virtues have a place in life.

I have not had one since.   Now that my beard is white, if I had one, I would look a hundred years old so now my vanity- which is very ironic that I have any at all- ;) tells me I should not grow it back, assuming my lip has not gotten bald like everything else.....

I actually want to grow a Lorenzo Snow beard and still may do so.....   ;)

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recently received an email from our local temple presidency reminding us of grooming standards for ordinance and veil workers. In light of the recent conversation about white shirts, I found this particularly interesting. 

While I agree that individuals serving in the temple should be clean and well-groomed, these rules strike me as Pharisaical. 

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing? Or should temple patrons be encouraged to follow Elder Bednar's counsel to not be offended?

Is limiting jewelry to 1 set of earrings really important enough to warrant handbook instructions?

Why is being clean-shaven, which is obviously a modern policy, necessary for an individual to be a temple worker? 

Are white tennis shoes really so undignified that a handbook restriction is needed? Isn't it possible that temple workers may need the comfort and sturdiness of non-dress white shoes from time to time?

 

With rules like this for temple workers, is it any wonder there is rampant Pharisee-ism in the church? 

As long as the Temple workers can wear clothing made of different fabrics and (the women) can even wear earrings, I think we should all consider ourselves lucky. 

It could be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, emeliza said:

I take it that they want the temple workers to sort of be a wall flower. Since the temple workers are right at the front or involved, they just don't want the visual to distract from the spiritual. 

 

Deleted...

Edited by Bill "Papa" Lee

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

In a brutal accident, the surgery left me with nerve damage. The few time I have tried to shave my goatee, I have cut mysel and caused infection. Twice I have been called to serve in the Temple, when I have explained my difficulties, I was not allowed to serve...now my service is taking part in endowments. They do let profession Santa Clauses to serve, but no exceptions are made for medical reasons. I have been asked to let my wife shave you, or go to a barber...my wife's refuses and barbers could money, especially if I serve more than once a week. So no serving for me as a Temple worker. Maybe you are right, although I can't image how a beard would distract other members to the point they would not feel the Spirit. If so, I wonder how the early Saints coped, along with every picture of God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Temple, they always have beards. 

Did you mean to quote this response of mine?  I don't think beards are inappropriate or distracting.  I think dangly earrings could be.....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I hope that some day soon the need to be clean shaven for any calling goes away. I think it's as silly--and even sometimes as emotionally cruel--as it would be for the church to require women to all cut their hair to chin length before they could hold certain callings. 

It is only Temple callings, and serving as a GA, I have served in many callings, including Stake callings and in the Bishopric. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, emeliza said:

Did you mean to quote this response of mine?  I don't think beards are inappropriate or distracting.  I think dangly earrings could be.....

I was just pointing out that I am not sure it is a distraction, and current policy. If I read your wrong, I apologize. I certainly meant not hard...please forgive. Maybe I should have not spoke of my situation...so sorry. I meant no offense. Erased...

Edited by Bill "Papa" Lee

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I was just pointing out that I am not sure it is a distraction, and current policy. If I read your wrong, I apologize. I certainly meant not hard...please forgive. Maybe I should have not spoke of my situation...so sorry. I meant no offense. Erased...

No offense taken.  I have a friend with a similar situation and shaving.  I don't understand that part of the rules.  I am sorry you thought I was talking about the clean shaven part.  I was more thinking of the clothing and jewelry part. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I hope that some day soon the need to be clean shaven for any calling goes away. I think it's as silly--and even sometimes as emotionally cruel--as it would be for the church to require women to all cut their hair to chin length before they could hold certain callings. 

I love nice trim beards and mustaches.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
      With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.
      I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).
      So, it makes sense to me that changes could come, as early as the next few weeks. So I've got a couple of questions.
      1- Would you welcome changes to the length of time it takes to perform temple ordinances? (I call these efficiency changes)
      2- Is the family history/temple approval system adequate for temple work to move forward in a faster way? IOW- will there be enough names (without duplication) to keep up a faster pace?
      3- Are there other changes (besides efficiency) that you might expect to see?
      *Please keep the discussion respectful, both to each other and also to the temple rituals. There are a couple of specific items/topics regarding temple worship that shouldn't be discussed.
    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
×
×
  • Create New...