Timpanogos Temple "incident"

[SteveO]

My wife is a temple worker and she came home last night telling me about a new policy that is being put into effect.  Apparently at the Timpanogos Temple last week a member of the ordain woman movement interrupted and shut down an endowment session.  They tried to reason with her and I guess it got out of control.  The new policy is to remain silent and call security to have them escorted out.  

 

I'm gauging that from the new policy, they are anticipating more interruptions of this nature.  Has anyone heard about this?  I tried doing a search but nothing has come up.  

[HappyJackWagon]

I haven't heard of that being an OW tactic. It is extremely unfortunate if that is their practice and this isn't only reflective of 1 person's bad behavior.

In our temple that kind of policy has always been in place. There's really no use arguing with someone. Simply call security and keep the line at the recommend desk moving along.

OR was this person actually making a scene during the endowment? That would be even worse.

[SteveO]

I haven't heard of that being an OW tactic. It is extremely unfortunate if that is their practice and this isn't only reflective of 1 person's bad behavior.

In our temple that kind of policy has always been in place. There's really no use arguing with someone. Simply call security and keep the line at the recommend desk moving along.

OR was this person actually making a scene during the endowment? That would be even worse.

 

 

 

No, no.  They were actually IN the session and interrupted it with the intent of shutting it down.  They gathered the temple workers together last night before my wife's shift began and told them to not try and reason with them as it made the situation last week worse.

Edited September 16, 2015 by SteveO

[Calm]

It makes sense to have a plan in place even if there is no hint of it happening again. At the very least temple workers will feel better prepared.

I would be shocked if this is an organized or promoted event. OW have done some foolish things to alienate the moderates, but this would be close to the ultimate.

They are also preparing for their conference event; this will, if publicized, at best detract attention from that.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Calm

[Mars]

probably frowned upon by the rest of OW.

[Tacenda]

My wife is a temple worker and she came home last night telling me about a new policy that is being put into effect.  Apparently at the Timpanogos Temple last week a member of the ordain woman movement interrupted and shut down an endowment session.  They tried to reason with her and I guess it got out of control.  The new policy is to remain silent and call security to have them escorted out.  

 

I'm gauging that from the new policy, they are anticipating more interruptions of this nature.  Has anyone heard about this?  I tried doing a search but nothing has come up.  

Oh dear, I hope this isn't them, but an imposter.  I know they have made some terrible moves, but this will not help the feminists in the church who are believers. 

[Buckeye]

I'm not sure that's a new policy. I've been a temple worker twice. If someone was disrupting an endowment session that I was conducting I also would have had them removed, as peaceably as possible of course.

 

While I'm doubtful that there is any public information on this incident, please do share if you have any. I'm particularly curious how you know that the sister was part of OW, or the reason the temple is expecting more interruptions. Since forming a few years ago, OW has consistently chosen to publicly announce all "actions" that they take. I just checked their website and there is nothing about disrupting endowment sessions. 

 

FWIW, I have heard rumors over the past few years of sisters who decline to veil themselves when instructed to do so in the endowment. I don't know of any coordinated efforts, but it's happened enough for my mother to mention it (she's a temple worker). The policy in my mother's temple is to do nothing. Veiling is not considered critical to the ordinance and the failure to veil is not seen by her temple president/matron as a significant disturbance. 

[SteveO]

I'm not sure that's a new policy. I've been a temple worker twice. If someone was disrupting an endowment session that I was conducting I also would have had them removed, as peaceably as possible of course.

 

While I'm doubtful that there is any public information on this incident, please do share if you have any. I'm particularly curious how you know that the sister was part of OW, or the reason the temple is expecting more interruptions. Since forming a few years ago, OW has consistently chosen to publicly announce all "actions" that they take. I just checked their website and there is nothing about disrupting endowment sessions. 

 

FWIW, I have heard rumors over the past few years of sisters who decline to veil themselves when instructed to do so in the endowment. I don't know of any coordinated efforts, but it's happened enough for my mother to mention it (she's a temple worker). The policy in my mother's temple is to do nothing. Veiling is not considered critical to the ordinance and the failure to veil is not seen by her temple president/matron as a significant disturbance. 

From what my wife said, the things said during the interruption involved women and the priesthood.  I wasn't sure if this was organized so that's what I was wondering.  From what the temple president told my wife, they are anticipating more.  Whether that's just his opinion or not I can't say.

[Calm]

This is not something the Press could be invited to even for one or two local events while pushing for international responses similar to their conference event in the past at local stake centers (press went to the Marriot Center and iirc someplace in SL County). It therefore seems out of character for OW.

They've also made the point that they are not being disruptive, but just trying to be a part of things. I would disagree with them, but there is a difference between pushing for inclusion of women in ordinances as they are now, including the Priesthood, and pushing to change the actual ordinance.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Calm

[Buckeye]

From what my wife said, the things said during the interruption involved women and the priesthood.  I wasn't sure if this was organized so that's what I was wondering.  From what the temple president told my wife, they are anticipating more.  Whether that's just his opinion or not I can't say.

 

Thanks. For the record, the vast majority of people who talk about "women and the priesthood" have nothing to do with OW. For example, Sherri Dew, Elder Oaks, my wife, etc. It sounds like people jumped to the conclusion that this woman was affiliated with OW. Hopefully she gets some help. I remember one testimony meeting where police had to be called to help with a sister who was off her medication. 

[Garden Girl]

From what my wife said, the things said during the interruption involved women and the priesthood.  I wasn't sure if this was organized so that's what I was wondering.  From what the temple president told my wife, they are anticipating more.  Whether that's just his opinion or not I can't say.

 

Hello SteveO...

I, too, was a temple worker for almost six years... in our prayer meetings/training before our shift, we received instructions on how to handle possible situations from helping disabled to security matters... we were told if a patron caused a disturbance to call security... the session was to be stopped and we were to remain silent and just wait for security to arrive, and the person would be escorted from the session.  It would not surprise me a bit, unfortunately, if this is something that will happen again... sadly, there are those who would be willing to disrupt a session or the temple peace to make their point according to their agenda. 

 

GG

[smac97]

I am not presently inclined to conclude that this incident was orchestrated by the OW folks. As crass and unseemly as their prior conduct has been, I don't think they would go so far as to disrupt an endowment session. I think this was more likely an unsanctioned act by someone who may or may not be affiliated with OW.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 16, 2015 by smac97

[bluebell]

 

FWIW, I have heard rumors over the past few years of sisters who decline to veil themselves when instructed to do so in the endowment. I don't know of any coordinated efforts, but it's happened enough for my mother to mention it (she's a temple worker). The policy in my mother's temple is to do nothing. Veiling is not considered critical to the ordinance and the failure to veil is not seen by her temple president/matron as a significant disturbance. 

 

In my friend's mother's temple, they were instructed to shut the session down any time a sister refused to veil, and to tell the patrons that all of their names would have to be returned to begin their endowment again from the beginning.

 

Made me wonder if he was trying to employ a little bit of negative peer pressure on any women who would try such a thing.  I know i would be upset at anyone who caused a session i was in to get stopped so close to the end.

[carbon dioxide]

My wife is a temple worker and she came home last night telling me about a new policy that is being put into effect.  Apparently at the Timpanogos Temple last week a member of the ordain woman movement interrupted and shut down an endowment session.  They tried to reason with her and I guess it got out of control.  The new policy is to remain silent and call security to have them escorted out.  

 

I'm gauging that from the new policy, they are anticipating more interruptions of this nature.  Has anyone heard about this?  I tried doing a search but nothing has come up.  

If true this would be a prime example of one of the last people on earth that should ever be ordained to the priesthood.  That is completely opposite of what the priesthood is about. 

[Calm]

It does seem extreme to suggest that one woman's refusal would somehow invalidate others. I can see taking note of the woman and redoing her name if this is really a problem...but everyone? Makes no sense to me.

And it does seem like peer pressure and since they don't announce this ahead of time, it would mean someone has refused and then gone ahead, not because she changed her mind but mostly because she doesn't want to upset others...so how does that unwiiling participation not invalidate the endowment for that name so much more than the willing bystanders' participation whose only problem is they were observers of someone refusing?

And there could be another reason to refusing to veil and that is claustrophobia. I almost passed out once being veiled, feeling I wasn't getting any air to breath and I pretty much spaced out on that part of the endowment, having to focus on keeping myself from panicking to just keep the veil down. I didn't go in prayer circles so I could lean forward and have the veil away from my face or move it to fan air around. I would have been much more involved during that time if I could have veiled and then unveiled immediately.

I wonder at times how many women have that problem. Mine thankfully is gone now, though I would love to get a thin loosely woven cotton veil still. If anyone knows where to get one besides sewing it oneself, let me know.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

Wow, that is really low. Do we know for certain that this person was a member of OW? 

[HappyJackWagon]

The only disruption I've ever seen is those darned tardy Mormons showing up late and holding up the session. I've never even seen anyone withdraw peacefully.

Calm, that's an interesting perspective about claustrophia and not one I would have thought of. Thanks for sharing.

[Lachoneus]

My wife is a temple worker and she came home last night telling me about a new policy that is being put into effect.  Apparently at the Timpanogos Temple last week a member of the ordain woman movement interrupted and shut down an endowment session.  They tried to reason with her and I guess it got out of control.  The new policy is to remain silent and call security to have them escorted out.  

 

I'm gauging that from the new policy, they are anticipating more interruptions of this nature.  Has anyone heard about this?  I tried doing a search but nothing has come up.  

 

I served in the Timpanogos Temple for a little over 16 years before being transferred to the Provo Temple when they changed the temple districts boundaries. As far as I am aware, this has always been the policy. I was told that when I was officiating in any session, if anyone disrupted the session, we were simply to stop the session and then call for security. We were told not to engage the person in any way, but to wait silently until security arrived. I image that what happened after this incident is merely that all ordinance workers were reminded of the already existing policy.

[Thinking]

I'll repeat what what I previously wrote.

 

I think the best way to oppose is to not show up anymore.

[Jeanne]

I am hoping that this woman was an exception in the group.  I just can't imagine all of them going overboard like this..Keep us posted!

[phaedrus ut]

I had something similar happen when I was a temple worker.  Being touched by a man through the veil triggered something from earlier abuse in her life.  It derailed the session and those that hadn't made it through were asked to terminate their session.  I approached the Temple President later expressing my concern for the names that were unable to complete the session.  He told me that the names are used multiple times per week and events like this were unlikely to happen twice. 

 

 

Phaedrus

[BlueDreams]

Haven't heard of any events...but if timp is anything like the Provo temple, they are extremely proactive about implementing (or remphazing) policy to avoid problems. if the event was disruptive enough, it wouldn't take more than once for counsel to be given to address potential problems. they don't need a trend

Edited September 16, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Duncan]

I've heard of all kinds of things unvoluntarily happening in Temples but this one is new on me. When I was in YSA years ago there was this girl and her male friend who both have questionable mental health anyways they got into a fight in the waiting room and both got kicked out. But with passing years and different Temple staff probably both have been back but maybe not together

[Bobbieaware]

A bit off point, but can anybody here please explain to me why the women of OW have been pressing to be ordained to the priesthood, when from what we already know for sure women are going to be ordained priestesses, not priests? Based on my temple experience, I have every reason to believe the priestesshood is exclusively for women, while the priesthood is exclusively for men, and that these two divinely-ordained repositories of divine authority are not interchangeable organizations.

Could it be OW's big mistake is that they"ve been campaigning to receive the priesthood, when if they had had their wits about them it would have much wiser to press for a fuller revelation of the role of priestesses? I'm perplexed as to,why OW seems to have missed this obvious point, because it's very likely OW would have been much better received if they had pressed for a fuller explanation of the role of priestesses instead of campaigning to be ordained to the all-male priesthood.

So why did OW miss something so obvious, and by so doing sabotage their own movement? The only possible answer I can come up with is that OW is a modern feminist movement, and feminists won't settle for anything less than total equality with men. And if it does ultimately turns out the holy priesthood and holy priestesshood are two distinct but closely related organizations, it will mean OW has been futilely and foolishly barking up the wrong tree.

[Storm Rider]

I am not presently inclined to conclude that this incident was orchestrated by the OW folks. As crass and unseemly as their prior conduct has been, I don't think they would go so far as to disrupt an endowment session. I think this was more likely an unsanctioned act by someone who may or may not be affiliated with OW.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

It would seem like the wiser position is do conclude nothing until we receive more information.  Until then it is just an unfortunate incident.