Temple Grooming Standards

[Ouagadougou]

On 04.02.2017 at 5:23 AM, 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? 

If you don't shave -- then you can't grow closer to Christ -- who, by the way, had a beard.  IMO, these are random rules/regulations that are not from God and have absolutely nothing to do with one's spirituality.  The belief that being clean shaven will help somebody be a better temple work is ridiculous.  

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an awesome post BlueDreams, thanks for sharing.  I don't expect that you or anyone else would agree with me 100% on anything, let alone this topic, but I applaud your willingness to share your thoughts and whether we agree or disagree I want to honor and validate your experience.  Such good suggestions, I loved every one of them, especially the idea of having different actors of different nationalities in the temple film, that one should be higher on my list and would be so easy to implement.  

I've never tried reading my patriarchal blessing in the temple, but I don't know why that would be prohibited, can't you just put it in your pocket and then take it out in the celestial room?   

No, you can't. No outside reading material are allowed in the celestial room. You can read the scriptures provided.

But I also sense that differing temples reinforce the rule differently. And that changed in the temple I worked in the longest over the years. It used to be that you couldn't have them out in the celestial room and during ordinances, but you were fine outside the celestial room. Then it became more general to the entire temple. This is probably one rule that I have a tendency to break, just less obviously and never in the celestial room. Like I said, I have a stubborn streak and it runs deep.

I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be higher on your list. It's nothing bad. I'm a minority, so I notice more...it's not something that has a prominent place in our overall society, in specific areas of the church, and in most of the progressive/NOM/faith transitioning voices that I've ever heard...honestly in the last category, these often have similar backgrounds particularly in the US. It's something that's missing a lot in a variety of dialogues. But it is also the only thing that I can actually say was a let down/"hurt" for me in the temple when the new videos were brought in. I didn't realize I had this hope bubbling that then got dashed when out of 3 new videos, only one actor in the background was possibly a minority (the sort that it's hard to tell for sure).  I put "hurt" in quotation marks because it feels a little strong. On my list of hurtful experiences in my life, this runs pretty low. A lot of racial things run on low... it's the accumulation of all these lower hurts that makes them more poignant.  

 

Quote

 

On the topic of making the temple more focused on Jesus, I really mean that one, its an important thing for me.  And I understand what you're saying about how you feel like the symbols point to Jesus, and that's great that you see it, however, I don't see it.  I see the temple as more about earning exaltation, following rules and requirements to earn this reward.  Yes the reward is with Jesus and the means of earning exaltation is through Jesus' sacrifice, but when I say I want more focus on Jesus in the temple, I'm saying that the central message of the temple isn't a focus on the ministry of Jesus.  We could take cues from the liturgy of other Christian faiths, there is much rich symbolism and tradition in the wider Christian tradition that we miss almost entirely as Mormons.  The temple rituals could incorporate some of these traditions and symbolism.  It could contain more focus on us dying in Christ and figuratively taking up our cross as we let go of and become born again through Christ.  There is so much that could be tapped into, including greater focus on this life and the things we need to do to bring the kingdom of God right now in this world.  It also goes to one of my critiques of Mormonism and that there is too much focus on the afterlife, when I believe Jesus was primarily focused on this life.  Yeah, this is quite a change, but its what I'm aspiring to, and even though you find great love for the current emphasis, that doesn't mean you couldn't find greater love with a changed emphasis.  Sometimes leaving the comfortable for the unknown is scary and it feels safer to stay with the comfortable.  

 

I don't doubt your sincerity, I just honestly don't see it that way. It probably doesn't help my capacity to perspective take when one of my most poignant spiritual experiences with Jesus happened last week....in the temple, on cleaning duty, while waiting quietly and reading an Isaiah passage.  The other most poignant one was while watching a baptism. Both around symbols and ordinances or in the cleaning, serving in the house of the Lord. Usually my capacity to jump into another's point is a little more salient. But it's just not something i'm following you on at all. And though there is much rich symbolism in other faith traditions. Having a specific symbol in and of itself doesn't necessitate something richer or deeper. I go to midnight mass most Christmases. It's chalk full of Christ/trinity symbols during communion, their order of events, etc. But it doesn't necessarily draw me closer just because I can see some of the intricate symbolic referencing a happening. Honestly I go for the music and the opportunity to sing praises on Christmas.   With the underlined I already see all of that in some of the covenants we make and the symbolism of being made alive in Christ. As well as our very first ordinance of baptism....which is also repeated again and again in the temple. And initiatory for that matter. The second part to me seems like basically the entire endowment ceremony. It's not really about the afterlife, but this one. And that as we partake in the Atonement and Christ's Gospel order we are prepared to receive all that He is and all that God has/desires us to become. And if Christ is focused on this life, then it make sense to me to focused on what is expected of us in THIS life. I love learning about the ministry of Jesus. But I'm not going to lie that's one of the things I'm not a big fan of from what I see in some other christian denominations when I've attended. They tend to focus on a small part of a large and complicated tapestry of Scripture. Not only is it bible-only in many, it can new testament mostly. The temple isn't meant to focus on one chunk of all the works of God but to bring all things in one with Christ as the central/moving figure. Because of it, I find the words, ordinances, covenants, and symbols as without a specific time or place but a continuation of all the Works of God, the Purposes of Christ, and the great patterns of mankind that resonate and ripple throughout all scripture. Because of that I find Christ, through these temple ordinances, in all things, all scripture, and echoed again throughout my own life.

It's not only a change. It feels a little limiting to me in some ways. And already in there in our traditions and symbols in others.     

 

With luv,

BD

*Ironic side note, today in between times I was writing this I had another couple come in who were in dire straits the last time I talked to them, decided to make a goal together to attend the temple together weekly, and it is giving them far more emotional space than I've ever seen them have. I was prepping for some emotionally heavy war like sessions only to find that God and the structure of the temple (and one temple specifically) had done half my ground work. 

[BlueDreams]

On 2/8/2017 at 9:23 PM, hope_for_things said:

Good question Calm, I honestly don't feel warm and fuzzy about that concept either.  It seems like a loss of individuality.  At a couple rare times I've felt like my hopes and prayers and perhaps even my will were aligned with the divine in an existential kind of way, these experiences were meaningful to me.  However they were temporary and fleeting.  Perhaps that's what it would be like only permanently.  I can't really comprehend that, but that's about as close as my imagination can take me to this concept.  

I know this was to Calm, but I find myself thinking about it a lot and wanted to just share my opinion. I can deeply understand that, because I've felt the same. I think the construct of oneness and individuality have both been hijacked a little in our modern western culture. Oneness is viewed more as conformity while. Traditionally the ideal of the Trinity placed a divine oneness in terms that left to minimal distinctions beyond specific role played and in certain traditions led to a God without passions like man. God, in this sense, moves to a state that is near intangible to us. Terms that follow such were also hijacked throughout history and today. Submission is often closer to subjugation and oppression. Yielding in terms of acquiescing. Etc. Meanwhile individuality is extolled in ultimate expressions of freedom, authenticity, and truth. This, particularly earlier in life and with my personality, made me feel pretty strongly in favor of one over the other. To say I didn't feel warm and fuzzy about the ideas of oneness was an understatement. I genuinely was repulsed by the idea and surrounding terms.

But I think the oneness, yielding, submitting, etc actually described in scripture isn't what it's come to mean to us now. I think of the contrast between 2 metaphors that are repeated a few times in differing ways but both have to do with following God. I'll point to 2 that have to do with fire and light

Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.  

The imagery gives of something short lived. Light in general is a symbol in scripture that is positive, but this is used to describe something that can't be maintained. Meanwhile the role of God is describe as "a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap" (Malachi 3 and 3 Nephi 24). The act to purify does remove things from us, but it's not at the loss of self but and allowance of our truest selves to come through. Light and fire are also used to describe these with having the glory of the Sun. In following ones one course, our individuality and unique attributes are limited and short lived. In Christ they become more intense, more powerful, and eventually eternal. 

Personally, I haven't found a loss of individuality - as in my truest greatest form of BD - but an increase.

 

With luv,

BD   

Edited February 10, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I see marriage as an example of what oneness can be.  Man and woman are commanded to become one in flesh, but no one interprets that to mean the man will become a woman in form or a woman man.  Instead it is their verydifferences that aligned together create the oneness. The sum is greater than the parts and so forth.  Full expression of a oneness relationship in a marriage creates both equal and unique whole individuals who become whole or complete in their selves through the giving of themselves to the other, becoming fully known to each other and themselves as they learn who they are through their relationship.  An analogy would be a processing machine, we really don't know what it is until we turn it on and see what it does, how it interacts with the materials it is given to produce what it was created for.  Or a seed that we have no knowledge of until it interacts with/aligns itself with soil, water, light, matching what it needs with what it receives down to a molecular level, which allows it to open up and release itself, expand, grow, becoming more and more unique as it aligns with more and more, especially if encouraged by a gardener who looks to find and then nurture its strongest qualities while providing support for weaknesses and grafting in missing elements that inhibit full growth or expression of perfection.

Only we are eternal, not a created machine or even a dormant seed from a parent plant....and to a great extent what we are creating with God is ourselves, and in my opinion primarily through all our relationships with others.  They function as effective reflections, we see ourselves by our impact on others more than by introverted self reflection which is important, but can get locked into limited circular perception by being unchallenged by external input from others.  

And the more we open ourselves up to others to interact, to share our lives with them and the more we align ourselves with others in divine oneness, the more we open ourselves up to true growth instead of just fixating on a bit here and there that we are currently aware of.

Oneness can occur in other relationships beside marriage, but marriage does tend to provide opportunities that open ourselves up in deeper, ongoing ways...though we often short ourselves and each other by allowing ourselves not to take advantage and hold ourselves back, living by habit rather than awareness.  

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Discussion destroys nothing except maybe emotional connections, but if your ideas to open the temple up, etc. were implemented, it would, imo, alter the sense of sacred space and time so dramatically that many, possibly most who find it of value today would lose that sense.  The temple would in essence become just another chapel....which is something we need, but we also already have.  The temple is quite unique and has value in those areas of uniqueness (not because they are unique, but what they do in setting the experience into sacred space and time).  

When we push for change it is essential, imo, to be just as concerned about good that may be lost as the good that may come from the change....especially when what we are intent on changing is the sole source of an experience or resource for many, even if we don't see it the same way.

Too many cultural qualities have been destroyed by sometimes well intentioned people thinking they are showing the unenlightened a better way, draining the sacred and rejuvenating life out of a community's traditions so that they become just a form they dance through for nostalgia, for sentimental reasons, not because they are life altering or life sustaining.  Just look at what Christmas has become for most in Western cultures.  There is little of the sacred or necessity about it, it could be interchanged with birthday or other celebrations easily enough...birthdays are another mostly meaningless experience, which is too bad because growing older is a huge impact in positive and negative ways at all ages and we in our culture give little emotional or rational help to people to process it these days.

There are, imo, a myriad of other ways we could open up other spaces to be more inclusive, we don't need to sacrifice the temple experience of setting apart to create a face to face with God, with our own divinity, to do so.  I think altering the temple in drastic ways should be last on the list and we should focus on the other areas that are more adaptable simply because they are meant for many uses.

Small alterations in language and ritual production to better convey current doctrinal understanding...those I am not rejecting.  For example, having a variety of ethnicities in the movies.  It would be distracting to do it all at once, but if they redid the movies more often and added in one or two different ethnic actors each time, it would be just a decade or so before every LDS could see themselves in the portrayal in a greater sense.

Having a sense of sacred space is one of the things I value most about the temple, so that would be a high priority in my mind.  I don't think it would become another chapel, it would still be a place for ritual that the chapel is not, I didn't suggest getting rid of ordinances just changing wording and streamlining and updating processes.  Think about it this way, Brigham Young said he was tasked by Joseph to put everything together, and there are recollections that Brigham was seeking to get things right as they continued to modify and update temple practices.  Well, this would just be a continuation of that tradition, we'd could modify, update and continue to evolve the rituals improving them in many ways. 

Culture is always shifting, its never a constant, its different today than it was when I was a kid, and it will be different in another 50 years.  When you talk about draining sacred life out of the traditions, I think thats just your fear of change talking. Your perceptions about what Christmas is today, vs what it should be is largely nostalgia, have you ever read about the history of the Christmas tradition?  Its can be quite interesting to see how history doesn't line up with assumptions about the current critiques of our culture's Christmas celebration.  

 

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't doubt your sincerity, I just honestly don't see it that way. It probably doesn't help my capacity to perspective take when one of my most poignant spiritual experiences with Jesus happened last week....in the temple, on cleaning duty, while waiting quietly and reading an Isaiah passage.  The other most poignant one was while watching a baptism. Both around symbols and ordinances or in the cleaning, serving in the house of the Lord. Usually my capacity to jump into another's point is a little more salient. But it's just not something i'm following you on at all. And though there is much rich symbolism in other faith traditions. Having a specific symbol in and of itself doesn't necessitate something richer or deeper. I go to midnight mass most Christmases. It's chalk full of Christ/trinity symbols during communion, their order of events, etc. But it doesn't necessarily draw me closer just because I can see some of the intricate symbolic referencing a happening. Honestly I go for the music and the opportunity to sing praises on Christmas.   With the underlined I already see all of that in some of the covenants we make and the symbolism of being made alive in Christ. As well as our very first ordinance of baptism....which is also repeated again and again in the temple. And initiatory for that matter. The second part to me seems like basically the entire endowment ceremony. It's not really about the afterlife, but this one. And that as we partake in the Atonement and Christ's Gospel order we are prepared to receive all that He is and all that God has/desires us to become. And if Christ is focused on this life, then it make sense to me to focused on what is expected of us in THIS life. I love learning about the ministry of Jesus. But I'm not going to lie that's one of the things I'm not a big fan of from what I see in some other christian denominations when I've attended. They tend to focus on a small part of a large and complicated tapestry of Scripture. Not only is it bible-only in many, it can new testament mostly. The temple isn't meant to focus on one chunk of all the works of God but to bring all things in one with Christ as the central/moving figure. Because of it, I find the words, ordinances, covenants, and symbols as without a specific time or place but a continuation of all the Works of God, the Purposes of Christ, and the great patterns of mankind that resonate and ripple throughout all scripture. Because of that I find Christ, through these temple ordinances, in all things, all scripture, and echoed again throughout my own life.

BD, thanks for sharing your experience, I value it, and I understand that the temple is very sacred.  It is sacred to me too, but its also challenging for me these days, and its a wrestle for me internally as I don't see the temple rituals as divinely given in great specificity, but I see them as works in progress by flawed and culturally influenced individuals who lived in a different time and place.  I would like an update, a refresh, using the principle of continuing revelation we have that power within Mormonism to update everything.  I'm optimistic and see an updated temple as having more power, more sacred opportunity, more inclusiveness for everyone, more symbolism, more inspiration.  I get excited just thinking about the potential.

I think I take after Joseph Smith a little when it comes to thinking about the possibilities of the future and not having limits on our potential.  I think this is part of the way Mormonism has influenced me and my life.   

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I know this was to Calm, but I find myself thinking about it a lot and wanted to just share my opinion. I can deeply understand that, because I've felt the same. I think the construct of oneness and individuality have both been hijacked a little in our modern western culture. Oneness is viewed more as conformity while. Traditionally the ideal of the Trinity placed a divine oneness in terms that left to minimal distinctions beyond specific role played and in certain traditions led to a God without passions like man. God, in this sense, moves to a state that is near intangible to us. Terms that follow such were also hijacked throughout history and today. Submission is often closer to subjugation and oppression. Yielding in terms of acquiescing. Etc. Meanwhile individuality is extolled in ultimate expressions of freedom, authenticity, and truth. This, particularly earlier in life and with my personality, made me feel pretty strongly in favor of one over the other. To say I didn't feel warm and fuzzy about the ideas of oneness was an understatement. I genuinely was repulsed by the idea and surrounding terms.

But I think the oneness, yielding, submitting, etc actually described in scripture isn't what it's come to mean to us now. I think of the contrast between 2 metaphors that are repeated a few times in differing ways but both have to do with following God. I'll point to 2 that have to do with fire and light

Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.  

The imagery gives of something short lived. Light in general is a symbol in scripture that is positive, but this is used to describe something that can't be maintained. Meanwhile the role of God is describe as "a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap" (Malachi 3 and 3 Nephi 24). The act to purify does remove things from us, but it's not at the loss of self but and allowance of our truest selves to come through. Light and fire are also used to describe these with having the glory of the Sun. In following ones one course, our individuality and unique attributes are limited and short lived. In Christ they become more intense, more powerful, and eventually eternal. 

Personally, I haven't found a loss of individuality - as in my truest greatest form of BD - but an increase.

 

With luv,

BD   

This is awesome, thank you for sharing such wisdom and the power of metaphor with those scriptures about fire, light and refining.  That really resonates with me, perhaps I have viewed this idea of being one with God as limiting my individuality, and that doesn't ring true to my sensibilities, when its just an interpretation that I've gotten that is an unnecessary misunderstanding of the principle that God is trying to point us towards.  I think we do this with a lot of the gospel honestly, and I'm going to take your different view of this and run with it.  I really love it.  Thank you! 

[Meerkat]

On 2/4/2017 at 5:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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

 

Part of a definition of Pharisee is as follows:

 

commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.

A self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

 

I submit that the so called "rampant Pharisee-ism," If there is such a thing,  is projected more by those who seek to steady the ark rather than those who merely seek to follow the Brethren. The request that "Personal dress or grooming should not be a distraction to patrons or other temple workers," is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to me.  The same request is given to those who prepare and bless the Sacrament.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 

Part of a definition of Pharisee is as follows:

 

commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.

A self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

 

I submit that the so called "rampant Pharisee-ism," If there is such a thing,  is projected more by those who seek to steady the ark rather than those who merely seek to follow the Brethren. The request that "Personal dress or grooming should not be a distraction to patrons or other temple workers," is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to me.  The same request is given to those who prepare and bless the Sacrament.  

Couldn't do this last night when I saw this post, because I was on an iPod touch.

But now I'm on a laptop, so ...

THREAD NECROMANCY ALERT!

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 2:10 AM, Meerkat said:

 

Part of a definition of Pharisee is as follows:

 

commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.

A self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

 

I submit that the so called "rampant Pharisee-ism," If there is such a thing,  is projected more by those who seek to steady the ark rather than those who merely seek to follow the Brethren. The request that "Personal dress or grooming should not be a distraction to patrons or other temple workers," is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to me.  The same request is given to those who prepare and bless the Sacrament.  

I wonder if the Pharisees considered themselves unreasonable. I doubt it. Their sanctimonious rules likely seemed very legit to them, just as ours seem to us.

It's how one defines "reasonable" and "distraction" that determines whether or not rule making and enforcement feels pharisaical or not. In the temple, short sleeved shirts are a distraction. Beards are a distraction. In my mind, if those kinds of simple things really distract patrons from enjoying the spirit of the temple then the problem is theirs and the offended should turn the mirror on themselves and stop trying to control the grooming of others.

[hagoth7]

On 2/4/2017 at 6:23 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Are others justified at being offended by my clothing?

I'm offended by your font choice.

[hagoth7]

On 2/4/2017 at 3:25 PM, 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 know of one fella who might shave his beard the day that temple grooming includes trimming all shrubs and grass down to their roots. 

Or *perhaps* before, if the right person/people were to simply ask nicely.

Edited June 5, 2017 by hagoth7