Temple Grooming Standards

[HappyJackWagon]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Phariseeism is taking the law of God and adding additional rules on top of thenLaw as a sign of piety or to make extra sure you are pure. If the Temple mandated white clothing and someone insisted on picking a particular shade of white that is most that would be Phariseeism. Insisting on only using extra virgin olive oil in blessings on the sick would be Phariseeism. 

Those poor Pharisees are always getting compared to everything people do not like. I almost feel bad for them.

Do you not see how the grooming standards are similar- adding additional rules on top of the law as a sign of piety and purity?

God- Dress in white as a symbol of purity to perform sacred ordinances in the temple

Temple - only wear certain types of white shoes, one set of earrings, and no facial hair.

Another rule to ponder on...

-The wearing of long sleeves (this is probably a throwback to when garments went to the wrist but has no practical reasoning today). Still, today, I could not wear short sleeves in the temple except for the baptism jumpsuits

 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Your definition of Phariseeism seems to fit quite well in the temple setting.

Consistently rigid- yes, Temple rules are quite specific and rigid

Applied in a fairly homogenous group- yes

No they're not. We're also told to try really really hard not to overtake the patron experience with rules. So for example, if there's a rule that we know isn't being followed we're told to discreetly remind them in a way that's not pushy or an embarassment to them. If they push back we're told to let it be. If they were really pharisaic the rules would outweigh the comfort of the patron. It is literally the opposite. We are definitely goal driven, but the goals aren't to maintain temple order, but to help bring the patrons toward Christ and to help them have the most positive experience that they can. We're specifically taught to move by the spirit, particularly in special circumstances to allow patrons who are sacrificing their time and often comfort in the case of the aged or infirm to be there.

The rules are quite specific. And they're more rigid for workers than they are for patrons. But honestly I wouldn't judge it unless you've been a worker yourself. I'm quite anti-authority in my day-to-day. I'm the sort that if you tell me to do something I push back, particularly to rules that feel arbitrary. A perfect example of that was on my mission when a leader told me I need to kneel in prayer for companionship study. She told me Christ prayed kneeling. I retorted that Christ  also prayed on a cross and I'm not about to do that, so why kneel? That's my personality to a tee. I would be the first to admit if the rules were Pharisaical. Sometimes, certain rules I disagree with. But to call them pharisaic would entail a number of qualities in temple work that just aren't there. 

Here is the definition to being Pharisaic according to an online dictionary:  "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to thespirit; self-righteous; hypocritical." In bold is the missing key aspect. Whenever I have been a temple worker the response is always the same. Here's the rules, but don't put too much focus on them for patrons so as to not overpower the spirit, make them uncomfortable, etc. The temple is to bring you to God through Christ. Not to the Rule book. And the temples I've been to work dang hard to do so. It's also the most recent push from higher up as well to help avoid such.

 

With luv,

BD

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you not see how the grooming standards are similar- adding additional rules on top of the law as a sign of piety and purity?

God- Dress in white as a symbol of purity to perform sacred ordinances in the temple

Temple - only wear certain types of white shoes, one set of earrings, and no facial hair.

Another rule to ponder on...

-The wearing of long sleeves (this is probably a throwback to when garments went to the wrist but has no practical reasoning today). Still, today, I could not wear short sleeves in the temple except for the baptism jumpsuits

 

Not to side track, and just curious, but does anyone know what the history of wearing white clothing in the temple is?  I'm curious if this was something they did in Kirtland and Nauvoo (red brick store before Joseph was killed or even after his death), or if this tradition formed in Utah.  Is there a revelation requiring white clothing somewhere, I can't recall.  

[HappyJackWagon]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No they're not. We're also told to try really really hard not to overtake the patron experience with rules. So for example, if there's a rule that we know isn't being followed we're told to discreetly remind them in a way that's not pushy or an embarassment to them. If they push back we're told to let it be. If they were really pharisaic the rules would outweigh the comfort of the patron. It is literally the opposite. We are definitely goal driven, but the goals aren't to maintain temple order, but to help bring the patrons toward Christ and to help them have the most positive experience that they can. We're specifically taught to move by the spirit, particularly in special circumstances to allow patrons who are sacrificing their time and often comfort in the case of the aged or infirm to be there.

The rules are quite specific. And they're more rigid for workers than they are for patrons. But honestly I wouldn't judge it unless you've been a worker yourself. I'm quite anti-authority in my day-to-day. I'm the sort that if you tell me to do something I push back, particularly to rules that feel arbitrary. A perfect example of that was on my mission when a leader told me I need to kneel in prayer for companionship study. She told me Christ prayed kneeling. I retorted that Christ  also prayed on a cross and I'm not about to do that, so why kneel? That's my personality to a tee. I would be the first to admit if the rules were Pharisaical. Sometimes, certain rules I disagree with. But to call them pharisaic would entail a number of qualities in temple work that just aren't there. 

Here is the definition to being Pharisaic according to an online dictionary:  "practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit; self-righteous; hypocritical." In bold is the missing key aspect. Whenever I have been a temple worker the response is always the same. Here's the rules, but don't put too much focus on them for patrons so as to not overpower the spirit, make them uncomfortable, etc. The temple is to bring you to God through Christ. Not to the Rule book. And the temples I've been to work dang hard to do so. It's also the most recent push from higher up as well to help avoid such.

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks for sharing BD.

1- Currently I am only a veil worker yet the grooming standards apply to me just like they would an ordinance worker

2- I wonder how the Pharisees in Christ's day viewed themselves. I suspect that there were many good, faithful, spiritual Pharisees who very much regarded the strict observance of rules and practices as regarding and being in tune with the spirit. I suspect they were strict because they felt it was the right thing to do and I doubt many Pharisees viewed themselves as self-righteous or hypocritical. They likely viewed themselves as church leaders trying to live righteously and set good examples for others. I can appreciate that.

3- Beyond the rather unimportant grooming standards is the strict observance of the symbolic ceremonies. I'm sure there is a wide array of beliefs along the literal/symbolic scale of temple worship. In my view the temple is very symbolic and not very literal yet it is treated as though every thing is very literal and our salvation depends on doing things precisely; grips, words, position of clothing, entrance past the veil etc. But all of those things are policed (albeit nicely) to ensure things are done properly with exactness. In my view it is right in line with the way the Pharisees would practice temple worship. There are good intentions. There is great spirit and meaning derived from the strictness of ordinance observance, but how likely is it that those things are all literal requirements for passing through the veil into the celestial kingdom? I suspect very little.

[HappyJackWagon]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not to side track, and just curious, but does anyone know what the history of wearing white clothing in the temple is?  I'm curious if this was something they did in Kirtland and Nauvoo (red brick store before Joseph was killed or even after his death), or if this tradition formed in Utah.  Is there a revelation requiring white clothing somewhere, I can't recall.  

I've read, but can't provide a reference (perhaps Devery Anderson's The Development of LDS Temple Worship) that the church officially expressed a preference for white garments after the time of the manifesto (1890-95 time period). Whether other clothing was all white before then I'm not sure. I'd be interested in reading about it if anyone has a source.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Don't get me wrong, i appreciate that temple workers go out of their way to minimize distractions.  It's just that we make things a distraction by drawing attention to them.  You can bet that i will now be paying attention to the footwear of temple workers to see what they look like because now i know that the temple presidency thinks that some are appropriate and some aren't.  I won't do it out of spite or course, it's just a natural consequence of highlighting certain aspects of someone's clothing-people notice what has been highlighted.

 

You have identified exactly why this topic is a problem - it is not that there are dress guidelines for temple workers, but that for those few who are not temple workers, do not have a frame of mind to serve in the temple, take offense about something that has nothing to do with them.  Question, had you never heard about about these guidelines would you be concerned about what a temple worker - male or female - was wearing?  

Conversely, let's assume there are no guidelines, which used to the case, and some would grow beards to their middle of their stomach or wear their hair very long.  Some would not even notice and others would take offense.  What is the answer?  Is there an answer where not a single person could take offense?  I haven't seen such a situation once in my lifetime.  Someone is always offended. Your hair is too short, too long, not clean enough, too "worked", etc.  Someone will always find fault.  

When I served in the temple many older workers wore white tennis shoes in the temple.  I never liked the look of them - it seem to clash for me personally with the sacredness of the temple, but men and women I respected wore them because they were comfortable.  I still think comfortable shoes can be found that don't look like tennis shoes, but it was not my problem - I did not wear tennis shoes.  However, if I noticed it I am sure many others noticed it and thus we now have a guideline to not wear them.  

I don't make the rules or guidelines for temple workers and no one has ever asked me.  I prefer to wear facial hair and I don't currently serve in the temple.  I wish the world was better and no one would ever take offense at the actions, words, thoughts, or clothing of others.  That is not the case and the temple worker guidelines are designed to offend the least of temple patrons....and yet, we obviously still have those who take offense.  Nothing changes, humans are still carnal beings and we each still hope that some day none of us will seek out opportunities to take offense at others or to find fault with them.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You have identified exactly why this topic is a problem - it is not that there are dress guidelines for temple workers, but that for those few who are not temple workers, do not have a frame of mind to serve in the temple, take offense about something that has nothing to do with them.  Question, had you never heard about about these guidelines would you be concerned about what a temple worker - male or female - was wearing?  

Conversely, let's assume there are no guidelines, which used to the case, and some would grow beards to their middle of their stomach or wear their hair very long.  Some would not even notice and others would take offense.  What is the answer?  Is there an answer where not a single person could take offense?  I haven't seen such a situation once in my lifetime.  Someone is always offended. Your hair is too short, too long, not clean enough, too "worked", etc.  Someone will always find fault.  

When I served in the temple many older workers wore white tennis shoes in the temple.  I never liked the look of them - it seem to clash for me personally with the sacredness of the temple, but men and women I respected wore them because they were comfortable.  I still think comfortable shoes can be found that don't look like tennis shoes, but it was not my problem - I did not wear tennis shoes.  However, if I noticed it I am sure many others noticed it and thus we now have a guideline to not wear them.  

I don't make the rules or guidelines for temple workers and no one has ever asked me.  I prefer to wear facial hair and I don't currently serve in the temple.  I wish the world was better and no one would ever take offense at the actions, words, thoughts, or clothing of others.  That is not the case and the temple worker guidelines are designed to offend the least of temple patrons....and yet, we obviously still have those who take offense.  Nothing changes, humans are still carnal beings and we each still hope that some day none of us will seek out opportunities to take offense at others or to find fault with them.

I'm curious. Are these things associated at all? If you could have facial hair while serving in the temple would you choose to serve there again?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you not see how the grooming standards are similar- adding additional rules on top of the law as a sign of piety and purity?

God- Dress in white as a symbol of purity to perform sacred ordinances in the temple

Temple - only wear certain types of white shoes, one set of earrings, and no facial hair.

Another rule to ponder on...

-The wearing of long sleeves (this is probably a throwback to when garments went to the wrist but has no practical reasoning today). Still, today, I could not wear short sleeves in the temple except for the baptism jumpsuits

 

Our current standards are less restrictive then the requirements given for Old Testament Priests and Levites in the Torah to administer in the Tabernacle and Temple and Jesus did not lay into the Priests for those requirements or refer to them as corruptions.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Our current standards are less restrictive then the requirements given for Old Testament Priests and Levites in the Torah to administer in the Tabernacle and Temple and Jesus did not lay into the Priests for those requirements or refer to them as corruptions.

So is the argument "we're not like the Pharisees as long as our extra rules aren't as restrictive as theirs"?

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Beyond the rather unimportant grooming standards is the strict observance of the symbolic ceremonies. I'm sure there is a wide array of beliefs along the literal/symbolic scale of temple worship. In my view the temple is very symbolic and not very literal yet it is treated as though every thing is very literal and our salvation depends on doing things precisely; grips, words, position of clothing, entrance past the veil etc. But all of those things are policed (albeit nicely) to ensure things are done properly with exactness. In my view it is right in line with the way the Pharisees would practice temple worship. There are good intentions. There is great spirit and meaning derived from the strictness of ordinance observance, but how likely is it that those things are all literal requirements for passing through the veil into the celestial kingdom? I suspect very little.

The temple, being as symbolic as it is, sets up the president as a “type” for Christ, and thus following his good-faith decisions to establish a house of order is how we symbolically affirm our inward commitment to follow the Christ. We do the same in sustaining and following those to whom He has given the keys of the kingdom (and who instruct the temple president). So just as presidents by grace have some leeway in operating the temple they are responsible for, so also do the workers and patrons receive grace when they make mistakes in their good-faith efforts, as everyone's inner commitment to follow the Lord is likewise made perfect through grace.

Edited February 6, 2017 by CV75

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So is the argument "we're not like the Pharisees as long as our extra rules aren't as restrictive as theirs"?

No, because the Pharisees did not write the portions of the Law covering temple service. 

My argument is that the Pharisees went beyond the Law. What we have now is the Law, customized to our time. We do not have hordes of devotees creating rules beyond scripture and revelation adding on extra pious steps today to ensure holiness. We have a few of these people but they are rare and are largely ignored.

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Or, it could happen when we get better at not looking beyond the mark.

It doesn't have to take the millennium occurring for us to realize that a well trimmed beard is not anymore a distraction than curly hair or badly done but minimal eyeliner on a woman (both of which i've actually been distracted by while in the temple yet are perfectly acceptable regardless).

Don't get me wrong, i appreciate that temple workers go out of their way to minimize distractions.  It's just that we make things a distraction by drawing attention to them.  You can bet that i will now be paying attention to the footwear of temple workers to see what they look like because now i know that the temple presidency thinks that some are appropriate and some aren't.  I won't do it out of spite or course, it's just a natural consequence of highlighting certain aspects of someone's clothing-people notice what has been highlighted.

 

Some with foot problems wear all white tennis shoes and its not a problem. No one looks at shoes, faces are a different thing.

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The temple, being as symbolic as it is, sets up the president as a “type” for Christ, and thus following his good-faith decisions to establish a house of order is how we symbolically affirm our inward commitment to follow the Christ. We do the same in sustaining and following those to whom He has given the keys of the kingdom (and who instruct the temple president). So just as presidents by grace have some leeway in operating the temple they are responsible for, so also do the workers and patrons receive grace when they make mistakes in their good-faith efforts, as everyone's inner commitment to follow the Lord is likewise made perfect through grace.

Bishopric language straight out of the interview. Good for you !

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, because the Pharisees did not write the portions of the Law covering temple service. 

My argument is that the Pharisees went beyond the Law. What we have now is the Law, customized to our time. We do not have hordes of devotees creating rules beyond scripture and revelation adding on extra pious steps today to ensure holiness. We have a few of these people but they are rare and are largely ignored.

 

I see many rules beyond scripture. The style of shoe, the style of long sleeved shirts/dresses, etc. Beyond the rule to wear certain things there are also rules about how to obtain those things that must be worn, and specifics about how they should be worn and how they should be disposed of. Temple garments cannot be made by members for their own personal use. Here's a little section from Handbook 2

Quote

21.1.42

Temple Clothing and Garments

Endowed members are encouraged to purchase their own temple clothing for use when performing temple ordinances. This sacred clothing may be purchased through Church Distribution Services. Some temples also have temple clothing available for rent. If a temple does not have rental clothing, members need to bring temple clothing with them.

Members may make their own temple aprons only if they use the approved apron embroidery and sewing kit that is available through Church Distribution Services. Other temple ceremonial clothing may not be made. Nor may temple garments be made.

These are rules on top of rules, none of which are scriptural.

Quote

Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. They should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible.

Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn.

The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance.

 

The garment is meant to be a reminder of covenants we have made in the temple. Great. I'm good with that. But even that has morphed dramatically into the teaching that we covenant to wear the garment itself. So not only is the garment a reminder of covenants, it has become a covenant unto itself. Again, adding rules onto rules with no scriptural justification for the requirement.

Quote

Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment.

I know we are limited in how we discuss these things and this is about as far as I feel comfortable going, BUT I will just challenge anyone who thinks this is a covenant to search out for yourselves where and when this covenant is made. You will not find it in the washing/anointing nor will you find it in the endowment proper (both constituting the 'endowment').

I'm sorry to get into the weeds here, but there are so many examples of how we have rules about how we follow the rules, and then more rules on top of those rules. This is exactly what the Pharisees were doing. Not because they were trying to do anything wrong, but because they were trying their best to be devout. But there is a risk to the kind of scrupulosity that requires members, whether in the temple or out, to focus so much on the outward expression of their inner faith, as if to prove something to themselves or others.

Edited February 6, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some things are noticeable, and that can be defined as a distraction, but there are so many different ways that a person can be noticeable that it doesn't make sense, to me, to outlaw some and allow others.  I don't want anyone not able to work in the temple because their make up skills or hair type stand out a bit (and my make up skills are not the greatest so no judgment there!)   

I have seen some amazingly odd eyebrows on some of the older women working in the temple-the kind that are drawn on but it's impossible to guess what look they were going for, other than making sure that they were three shades darker than their hair-and that can be really distracting (at first, it only takes a minute to process it and move on) but I don't care.  I feel love for those sisters and almost always feel love from them and that's all that I really care about.  I'm so glad they are there, helping me and being an example to me of ways to be a daughter in God's kingdom.

Making a policy that women were not allowed to wear make up while serving would solve those silly distractions, but to what end?  Then we'd all be distracted by seeing church members that we personally know without make up on for the first time!  

Isn't a distraction all in the eye of the beholder?  If something draws someone's attention, then does that make it a distraction?  Would a disabled person's disability draw attention and be a distraction?  

I could make the argument that its the rules themselves that create the problem causing these distractions.  If there was no rule for white clothing or # of earrings and then there would be nothing to cause a distraction because there would be no perceived standard that someone is violating.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Not to side track, and just curious, but does anyone know what the history of wearing white clothing in the temple is?  I'm curious if this was something they did in Kirtland and Nauvoo (red brick store before Joseph was killed or even after his death), or if this tradition formed in Utah.  Is there a revelation requiring white clothing somewhere, I can't recall.  

Revelations or policies about temple procedure are not published

 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Revelations or policies about temple procedure are not published

 

The problem with this is that most people assume that the details are all received in great specificity by revelation.  Hence the need for exact wording to be followed as if God requires very detailed adherence to specific procedures in order for the work to be efficacious.  A closer look at the development of temple history shows a much more mundane process.

My guess is that there was no revelation about what clothing color should be worn or an even a claim at a revelation, but it was just a policy change similar to the ban on blacks, without any divine guidance, hence it really has no business being a strictly followed rule of the church.  

Could you tell me why the church should cling so closely to traditions that aren't core to gospel principles considering the origins of many of these traditions are not founded in any clearly important moral principles?  

[Calm]

"Could you tell me why the church should cling so closely to traditions that aren't core to gospel principles considering the origins of many of these traditions are not founded in any clearly important moral principles? "

Because it is believed doing so creates the sacred space of our community more effectively, imo.  It is not about worthiness, but setting apart oneself, each other, and the temple environment.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Could you tell me why the church should cling so closely to traditions that aren't core to gospel principles considering the origins of many of these traditions are not founded in any clearly important moral principles? "

Because it is believed doing so creates the sacred space of our community more effectively, imo.  It is not about worthiness, but setting apart oneself, each other, and the temple environment.

I can see some value in setting apart and creating sacred space, but those two objectives could still be accomplished without rigid adherence to traditions that have no significant core moral value.  Isn't continuing revelation a core principle of the church, the temple rituals have all changed, the garments have changed, some fundamental ideas of Mormon identity (polygamy) have changed, we are a people that can change that is evident.

We need visionary leadership that is willing to evaluate our traditions and continue to change and update and respond to the needs of the membership and the culture as it changes and evolves.  I fear that unfortunately the structure of our hierarchy is organized in a way that eschews change unless significant pressures compel them to evaluate those traditions.  Unfortunately this causes the church to hold onto remnants of its past that are disjointed, out of step and harmful.  We hold onto tradition and just assume that it was heaven sent instead of the opposite where we should be asking ourselves, what is core to the gospel, what is divinely inspired and what do we need to hold as fundamental, and lets articulate that fundamental core and organize everything else around it as periphery.  

 

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Bishopric language straight out of the interview. Good for you !

I just got the first of two renewal interviews on Sunday... but also, when I Googled the phrase, I got this: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1997/08/the-temple-garment-an-outward-expression-of-an-inward-commitment?lang=eng

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

We need visionary leadership that is willing to evaluate our traditions and continue to change and update and respond to the needs of the membership and the culture as it changes and evolves. 

 

So does the membership of the church need to wear something other than white in the temple?  Have we evolved away from white as a symbol of celestial glory?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for sharing BD.

1- Currently I am only a veil worker yet the grooming standards apply to me just like they would an ordinance worker

2- I wonder how the Pharisees in Christ's day viewed themselves. I suspect that there were many good, faithful, spiritual Pharisees who very much regarded the strict observance of rules and practices as regarding and being in tune with the spirit. I suspect they were strict because they felt it was the right thing to do and I doubt many Pharisees viewed themselves as self-righteous or hypocritical. They likely viewed themselves as church leaders trying to live righteously and set good examples for others. I can appreciate that.

3- Beyond the rather unimportant grooming standards is the strict observance of the symbolic ceremonies. I'm sure there is a wide array of beliefs along the literal/symbolic scale of temple worship. In my view the temple is very symbolic and not very literal yet it is treated as though every thing is very literal and our salvation depends on doing things precisely; grips, words, position of clothing, entrance past the veil etc. But all of those things are policed (albeit nicely) to ensure things are done properly with exactness. In my view it is right in line with the way the Pharisees would practice temple worship. There are good intentions. There is great spirit and meaning derived from the strictness of ordinance observance, but how likely is it that those things are all literal requirements for passing through the veil into the celestial kingdom? I suspect very little.

1 - You're still a temple worker, so that would make sense that both would apply. There are exceptions, but they are usually people who are not temple workers but are apart of temple maintenance/security. Ie. People not directly tied to performing the ordinances.

2 - Of course there were good pharisees. An easy example is Nicodemus. But you are talking about a definition that isn't about who the original peoples were, but a common vernacular term. In which, the temple doesn't fit. As Nehor mentioned, their teachings were often looking "beyond the mark" and following rules as a measure of holiness. Though I'm sure there is some pretentious temple worker who thinks they're better than or more on the "straight and narrow" because they follow rules in the temple, most don't. Nor would they. And the general push and focus for temple workers is not about rules but about patrons and doing the work of the Lord with reverence to said ordinances. You can bend and stretch and re-imagine the pharisees to have more diverse thoughts and tones. But you can't take a specific term and re-stretch/define it in a way so that it fits ones current criticism. I am not saying that there aren't very specific and sometimes strict rules in the temple. There are. Some of which I disagree with. My point of divergence is that that, In and of itself, is not enough to be pharisaic. The key premise to the definition "pharisaic" is not only missing but actively pushed against by instructions to the temple workers.

3 -   Of course not. And they've changed up, from what I understand, over the years. The most recent change is about initiatory dress. That doesn't mean that these things shouldn't be worked to be properly observed. And even then, doing so is not nearly as strict as you may think. Before or after the veil. The veil ordinance itself is done in a specific order and manner. But even there, unless they get it completely wrong, workers are told not to mess with it or over-correct the patron. Similar things happen with all ordinances, such as baptism and sacrament. Is the exactness, absolutely necessary? I doubt it. But order and maintenance of these ordinances are, IMO. Particularly with scriptures about being a "House of order" in our D&C. Again, you can do this without being pharisaic about it. And for the most part I think the church and particularly the order in the temple works very hard to not cross that line.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Some with foot problems wear all white tennis shoes and its not a problem. No one looks at shoes, faces are a different thing.

Is there a polite way of telling someone that their face is offensive and distracting? 

"I'm sorry but your face is just too distracting to work at the temple.  I can shave my beard, but you...um...there is no cure for ugly"  

Edited February 6, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 most people assume that the details are all received in great specificity by revelation.

Really? And how do you know this?

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can see some value in setting apart and creating sacred space, but those two objectives could still be accomplished without rigid adherence to traditions that have no significant core moral value.

Which temple grooming standards (assuming that is what you are referring to) are rigid and without core moral value (i.e. antithetical to setting apart and creating sacred space)? The standards are typically prefaced with "should," leaving room for flexibility and exception. Their symbolism is found in the practice of them as much, if not more than, in their visual appearance.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with this is that most people assume that the details are all received in great specificity by revelation.  Hence the need for exact wording to be followed as if God requires very detailed adherence to specific procedures in order for the work to be efficacious.  A closer look at the development of temple history shows a much more mundane process.

My guess is that there was no revelation about what clothing color should be worn or an even a claim at a revelation, but it was just a policy change similar to the ban on blacks, without any divine guidance, hence it really has no business being a strictly followed rule of the church.  

Could you tell me why the church should cling so closely to traditions that aren't core to gospel principles considering the origins of many of these traditions are not founded in any clearly important moral principles?  

When you ask me a question you know you will get a long one.  Here it is.

Clearly you have noticed that we don't speak much about the temple and publishing every memo about how things should be done would be a clear violation of that

I will leave to the church to decide what are core gospel principles and what are not and whether or not moral principle are important or not.  I actually have a testimony of the wisdom of this practice of confidential information regarding the temple and would recommend others learn more about parables and the importance of symbols and why having anonymous temple workers in generic white is actually a powerful symbol of the fact that we are all equal before God.

EVERY .....   THING- EVERYTHING in the temple is symbolic and NOTHING is not symbolic.  We should never misunderstand that every light bulb in a chandelier has some symbolic function.   Ever counted them?

Gothic cathedrals used stained glass windows to teach those who are spiritually impoverished to understand symbolism and so does the temple.  First we have to look, learn, and see what the symbol might be of everything.  What is "higher", what is "lower", the symbolism of colors and numbers, they way people dress and why they dress that way.  

Those who only see what is obvious in the temple need to grow a bit in my opinion, and that includes dress and grooming.  Setting yourself apart intentionally as more than being a cog in a machine is inappropriate in the temple where all are equal before God.  Wearing flashy watches, jewelry, etc etc or intentionally being different is not for the temple.

Outside the temple perhaps you understand that I personally advocate that each individual should create their own worlds- create your own faith and doctrine, change your life style- do whatever you want that still allows you to get a recommend honestly.

Inside it is a different story for workers.

We in effect become part of the temple symbols and "furniture" and are of no self-importance but are to think of ourselves as humble drones and total servants to the Majesty of the Lord.

Our behavior and actions and appearance become essentially part of the architecture of temple symbolism itself.

I think workers know that- others might not.  It is significant that "leadership" in the temple are called "co-ordinators" for both the sisters and brothers.  Both are referred to as "officiators"- "Please follow the officiators"...  In essence there IS no "priesthood" in the temple because it is ALL "priesthood"- THERE and only there- brothers and sisters are on the same footing as humble servants officiating for others.  The leaders only "co-ordinate"- keep ordinances staffed with enough people and juggle them between tasks when more are needed in the baptistry or wherever.  The co-ordinators are more like traffic cops than leaders.   There are no "shift presidents" or anything like that- there are only the lead traffic co-ordinators. 

The temple symbolizes full submission to the authority of the Lord and is an exercise in obedience for its own sake.  Go outside if you want to and be as much of a democracy as you want- but inside it is Theocracy.   It is Zion with Christ himself ruling- or at least that is the symbolic construct which must be generated in the mind.

It is a training ground for obedience and sacrifice.   When we become too old to serve, or infirm, we know our time to stop has come because we are unable to perform the symbolic service of being a cog in the machine.   We are a broken gear.  Fine- let us proceed with out lives and endure til the end, but for now our ability to be a nameless symbol for someone else's edification has stopped.  The body has failed us, and we must continue to serve in another capacity.

THAT should be the attitude.

Symbolizing those who remained faithful in the war in heaven, we do not question the Lord's plan for two hours a month, for patrons, a few more hours a month for workers.  Outside we participate in apologetics and argue everything to our heart's content- but that is NOT FOR THE TEMPLE.

There it is obedience for its own sake as an exercise to see what that is like.   If we cannot do it, we cannot do it and should not go.  That is my opinion.

No one holds a gun to your head and says "be an ordinance worker or else".  

It is a privilege to serve and if you don't see it that way you do not belong there.  You voluntarily accept that by becoming an ordinance worker.   We do not change the ordinances because we do not like the wording- we do not change anything.  We have voluntarily accepted that commitment when we accept the call.