Temple Grooming Standards

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

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.

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I must not be expressing myself very well. I am suggesting that many of these temple rules are pharisaic because they are looking beyond the mark and requiring a precision out of people that serves no moral function. It's legalistic by nature. I'm not suggesting that ordinary temple workers are creating these rules themselves to look more righteous than others any more than the average Pharisee was out creating his own rules to look better than other Pharisses. The Pharisee was following the rules, and the rules on top of rules on top of rules because it's what they were taught by their authorities and they viewed it as a legalistic duty in showing their devotion.

As an example, I have a good friend who is a sealer. He finds value in wearing the 1 piece garment. Fine. But he also counsels young couples to wear the 1 piece garment as a means of extra spiritual protection. In this particular case, wearing the garment is not even enough. He creates a rule on top of the usual rule. He doesn't require it because, frankly he can't, but he still teaches it and proudly shares with other that he wears the 1 piece To what end? IMO he's looking beyond the mark. So in this case, a temple worker is himself looking beyond the mark but generally speaking I think it is much more common for the church to institute the additional rules itself.

 

[mfbukowski]

33 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.  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.  

 

There have been several changes in the presentation in the last few years to facilitate comfort- just recently there have been changes in the clothing required in certain ordinances. 

AND many substantial changes in 1990.  There have been substantial changes in the garments as well for reasons similar to what you seem to be protesting.

Perhaps you should attend more often.

Edited February 6, 2017 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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?

Possibly.  There are pros and cons.  Lets have an honest discussion and evaluation about these things, I think that's the point of the thread.  I like the article posted recently about the Bishop and his experiment dressing as a homeless person.  I think some of the concepts are relevant in the context of this discussion.  

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4890141-155/former-mormon-bishop-remembers-the-day

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I must not be expressing myself very well. I am suggesting that many of these temple rules are pharisaic because they are looking beyond the mark and requiring a precision out of people that serves no moral function. It's legalistic by nature. I'm not suggesting that ordinary temple workers are creating these rules themselves to look more righteous than others any more than the average Pharisee was out creating his own rules to look better than other Pharisses. The Pharisee was following the rules, and the rules on top of rules on top of rules because it's what they were taught by their authorities and they viewed it as a legalistic duty in showing their devotion.

As an example, I have a good friend who is a sealer. He finds value in wearing the 1 piece garment. Fine. But he also counsels young couples to wear the 1 piece garment as a means of extra spiritual protection. In this particular case, wearing the garment is not even enough. He creates a rule on top of the usual rule. He doesn't require it because, frankly he can't, but he still teaches it and proudly shares with other that he wears the 1 piece To what end? IMO he's looking beyond the mark. So in this case, a temple worker is himself looking beyond the mark but generally speaking I think it is much more common for the church to institute the additional rules itself.

 

I agree there is no place for that kind of thing and he should be corrected.

Next question.

People make mistakes.    Get over it.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Possibly.  There are pros and cons.  Lets have an honest discussion and evaluation about these things, I think that's the point of the thread.  I like the article posted recently about the Bishop and his experiment dressing as a homeless person.  I think some of the concepts are relevant in the context of this discussion.  

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4890141-155/former-mormon-bishop-remembers-the-day

Evaluate all you want- it is irrelevant to the symbolism of purity.  Changing that symbol or trying or even thinking about it is a waste of time.  When some other color becomes a several thousand year old symbol of purity you might have a case.

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Really? And how do you know this?

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.

How do I know that many people make assumptions about the details of temple ritual are received by revelation. That's an assumption I used to make and that been my experience through my life of interacting with members.  I don't have a scientific study to prove it though, perhaps your experience has been different, thats fine.

Which grooming standards have core moral value?  Setting apart and creating sacred space can be accomplished in a multitude of ways as evidenced by the multitude of differing religions around the world and their various different methods for setting themselves apart and creating sacred space.  HappyJackWagon started this thread listing rules that were set by his local leaders, those are the ones we're discussing specifically, although I'm sure there are others.  None of those rules that were listed in the OP are prefaced as flexible or optional.

I'm suggesting that we reevaluate those rules and traditions and consider whether or not particular applications are consistent with core gospel principles and if not, redefining them, and not just holding on to tradition for stubbornness sake.  It will take courage, the easier path is always complacency.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I appreciate your thoughts, those are all potentially positive elements of the temple.  I'm not suggesting that everything is bad about the current structure.  I'm also not suggesting we can't find symbolic meaning in everything in the temple.  I could probably find symbolism in every part that was manufactured in the composition of my automobile.   Humans are creative and great a finding connections that weren't created with that intention by their originator, this an amazing quality of the human mind, and I believe helps our species to adapt and evolve.  It doesn't mean that those symbols were placed their by a benevolent deity that is intentionally placing symbols in our path so that we can find some existential meaning that will help us to find salvation/exaltation in the next life.  

You make a good defense of the temple as presently constituted, but you fail to show any objectivity in your evaluation.  My point about the development of the temple rituals and traditions, you didn't dispute.  If these traditions were not divinely inspired, why not try to evaluate them against the core principles of the gospel message.  If we hadn't reevalutated our position on blacks then the 1978 revelation would have never happened.

Why can't we apply this same principle to everything else in our tradition.  This seems like a core principle that Joseph Smith established in the early church as I study the historical origins of the church.  The willingness to change, the willingness to reinterpret, re-translate, and change quickly and adapt to our environment.  Why have we lost that nimble flexibility?  Its seems a shame to me. 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Evaluate all you want- it is irrelevant to the symbolism of purity.  Changing that symbol or trying or even thinking about it is a waste of time.  When some other color becomes a several thousand year old symbol of purity you might have a case.

You're a very smart person, much more educated than I am, and I sincerely hope can recognize the racial baggage that comes with the symbolism of the color white.  It also has negative symbolism for thousands of years of prejudice and discrimination.  

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It will take courage, the easier path is always complacency.  

Some things are worth taking courage to fight against, this just doesn't seem like one of them to me.  Who is it really hurting?  However, I do agree, it is probably time for a change.  I just don't think it is worth exerting any effort over.

Elder Oaks said this about grooming standards at BYU in 1971.  I suppose the same rationale is used with the temple worker beard ban.  I am not sure if the beard is quite the political and rebellious statement it was back in 1971, but for whatever reason the ban remains. 

"Our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic.  They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time … [and] are subject to change.

"I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/standards-of-dress-and-grooming?lang=eng

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How do I know that many people make assumptions about the details of temple ritual are received by revelation. That's an assumption I used to make and that been my experience through my life of interacting with members.  I don't have a scientific study to prove it though, perhaps your experience has been different, thats fine.

Which grooming standards have core moral value?  Setting apart and creating sacred space can be accomplished in a multitude of ways as evidenced by the multitude of differing religions around the world and their various different methods for setting themselves apart and creating sacred space.  HappyJackWagon started this thread listing rules that were set by his local leaders, those are the ones we're discussing specifically, although I'm sure there are others.  None of those rules that were listed in the OP are prefaced as flexible or optional.

I'm suggesting that we reevaluate those rules and traditions and consider whether or not particular applications are consistent with core gospel principles and if not, redefining them, and not just holding on to tradition for stubbornness sake.  It will take courage, the easier path is always complacency.  

You originally said “most.” But I can accept “many” since that’s completely subjective and even one can be too many if you feel strongly about it …which apparently you do…

The word “should” is used quite a bit in the OP, which puts the expectations in proper context, allowing for optionality and flexibility when warranted within the moral framework of these standards. Their moral value, as pointed out a couple of times (see Posted 4 hours ago), is in the symbolism on a number of levels, but generally expressing the united commitment to follow Christ as joint heirs to His kingdom.

You haven’t offered any compelling alternatives to the existing symbolism or pointed out its inconsistency with core gospel principles. If there really is a need to question, evaluate and redefine, provide a practical demonstration. But it really doesn’t matter what the First Presidency or temple president decide to do to operate the temples as long as it is done and sustained in good faith as all who participate receive and show the grace the Lord exemplifies and endows.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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

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.

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.

I said "scripture and revelation". And yes, I believe revelation is heavily involved in these decisions.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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"  

Sure I get examples of that every day!  When people ask me "How are you?" I just answer "Ugly as ever" and it just sets them at ease.

Realistically though the workers are called, so those who are perhaps handicapped etc simply would not even be called even if worthy.  Any recommend holder is worthy of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure I get examples of that every day!  When people ask me "How are you?" I just answer "Ugly as ever" and it just sets them at ease.

Realistically though the workers are called, so those who are perhaps handicapped etc simply would not even be called even if worthy.  Any recommend holder is worthy of course.

If I'm too -- fill in the blank here --to be called or assigned to something, I'd just as soon not know about it. Leave me in blissful ignorance, say I. 

I will add that's just one reason, but a very good one, that I will never volunteer for a Church calling. I don't want to set myself up for rejection. 

Incidentally, as of this moment, you have straight 1 digits in your rep point total: 11,111. I wonder if there is some numerological significance in this. 

Enjoy the moment before somebody ruins it by awarding you another point. 

Alas, for me it came and passed before I was alert to it. 

[snowflake]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

How do I know that many people make assumptions about the details of temple ritual are received by revelation. That's an assumption I used to make and that been my experience through my life of interacting with members.  I don't have a scientific study to prove it though, perhaps your experience has been different, thats fine.

Which grooming standards have core moral value?  Setting apart and creating sacred space can be accomplished in a multitude of ways as evidenced by the multitude of differing religions around the world and their various different methods for setting themselves apart and creating sacred space.  HappyJackWagon started this thread listing rules that were set by his local leaders, those are the ones we're discussing specifically, although I'm sure there are others.  None of those rules that were listed in the OP are prefaced as flexible or optional.

I'm suggesting that we reevaluate those rules and traditions and consider whether or not particular applications are consistent with core gospel principles and if not, redefining them, and not just holding on to tradition for stubbornness sake.  It will take courage, the easier path is always complacency.  

I think we should restore all the temple traditions and customs to how they were originally performed. No women, no men with blemishes, no priests under the age of 35, etc.  Make the traditions the way the Jews did it for hundreds of years.  Start with going back to the original temple garments. https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments.htm

 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I think we should restore all the temple traditions and customs to how they were originally performed. No women, no men with blemishes, no priests under the age of 35, etc.  Make the traditions the way the Jews did it for hundreds of years.  Start with going back to the original temple garments. https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments.htm

 

That was under the old law. After Christ, the old law was fulfilled and done away. 

Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be keeping the law of Moses?

[stemelbow]

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

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

 

I'd agree.  Unfortunately for us this is just one case wherein the Church is being Pharisaical and thus creating a host of pharisaic-acting followers.  But what can you do?  The movement is deeply entrenched so much so that people will defend it as if defending it is a thing of valor.

[snowflake]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That was under the old law. After Christ, the old law was fulfilled and done away. 

Or are you suggesting that Christians should still be keeping the law of Moses?

I thought the LDS taught Sabbath day, which is old law. Are you suggesting that the LDS don't believe in keeping the commandments of the old law? The LDS church  makes a claim that they have restored the gospel. Why so many changes to the Temple?

I guess to answer your question, Christ fulfilled the law and by his blood we have been set free from the law, we are under grace.

[CV75]

On 2/5/2017 at 5:32 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I smell a pun somewhere around here.

Oh no... that would be a fragrant violation...

[CV75]

On 2/5/2017 at 5:26 PM, Duncan said:

aren't scents called that?! here people call it that! Eau du Buffalo!

I think we should take back our right to smell au naturel (that rhymes!)... and to smell however, whenever, and whomever we want!

[emeliza]

45 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I thought the LDS taught Sabbath day, which is old law. Are you suggesting that the LDS don't believe in keeping the commandments of the old law? The LDS church  makes a claim that they have restored the gospel.

The Sabbath changed after the old law was fulfilled.  Sabbath is now Sunday, not Saturday.  

[Rain]

18 hours 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.

Unfortunately, MANY people look at shoes. I say "unfortunately" because it is terribly difficult for me to comfortable shoes, let alone nice looking shoes as well. There are long posts every spring about caring for your feet before even thinking about wearing sandals each summer. People have dozens and hundreds of shoes because people look at what you are wearing on your feet. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by Rain

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, emeliza said:

The Sabbath changed after the old law was fulfilled.  Sabbath is now Sunday, not Saturday.  

Except in Israel.

[snowflake]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Except in Israel.

The 7th day Adventists would disagree but this should be discussed in another thread. My point is that the current LDS temple and everything surrounding it (clothes, ordinances, women, non Levitical priests, multiple temples, temple layout, temple president) resembles nothing of the OT temple described in the bible. I struggle to find even one thing that they have in common other than the term "temple".

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Some things are worth taking courage to fight against, this just doesn't seem like one of them to me.  Who is it really hurting?  However, I do agree, it is probably time for a change.  I just don't think it is worth exerting any effort over.

Elder Oaks said this about grooming standards at BYU in 1971.  I suppose the same rationale is used with the temple worker beard ban.  I am not sure if the beard is quite the political and rebellious statement it was back in 1971, but for whatever reason the ban remains. 

"Our rules against beards and long hair are contemporary and pragmatic.  They are responsive to conditions and attitudes in our own society at this particular point in time … [and] are subject to change.

"I would be surprised if they were not changed at some time in the future."

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/12/standards-of-dress-and-grooming?lang=eng

 

Our culture is hurting from a focus on the exterior and mundane, on conformity and judgment instead of the core of the gospel which is love and acceptance.  Its a cancer and its pervasive.  This is one contributing factor and we're currently being held back from becoming more Christlike people in the process.  Seems like we're ignoring prophetic warnings from the past and the lessons of scripture with our current attitudes.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I thought the LDS taught Sabbath day, which is old law. Are you suggesting that the LDS don't believe in keeping the commandments of the old law? The LDS church  makes a claim that they have restored the gospel. Why so many changes to the Temple?

I guess to answer your question, Christ fulfilled the law and by his blood we have been set free from the law, we are under grace.

The ten commandments and the Law of Moses are not the same thing.