Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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? 

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.)

Link to comment
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
Link to comment

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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.....

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...