Temple Grooming Standards

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

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 a our caring for your feet before even thinking about wearing samples each summer. People have dozens and hundreds of shoes because people look at what you are wearing on your feet. 

I noticed shoes all the time in the temple.  

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

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".

I thought that at one time. Then a few years ago I read through the whole bible again while I went to the temple more often for a year. I was surprised at how much was in the bible, but I had missed before. I remembered thinking how much one might miss of the things in the bible if they weren't going to the temple. 

Please know I don't mean to set myself up as better than you.  Just sharing how surprised to learn how much I had been missing. 

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Not everyone can be a GA!

And yes, you are still way ahead of me in rep points. Not everyone is called to be a rep point millionaire!  Grrrr

 

[snowflake]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

Ok, good point, I do believe you are correct in this statement.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

 

I disagree how the word "should" was used in the OP.  I don't read it as optional or flexible.  I highly doubt that the leader who crafted this message was just giving a suggestion that can or can't be followed by the temple workers.  I think they expect these rules to be followed.  

I also disagree that the potential symbolism is a proof of moral value.  Lets say its a requirement for all temple workers to wear a brown bag on their head during their service in the temple.  Then lets say that someone comes up with some symbolism around the brown bag, that makes them think of the soil of the earth, and that same soil that all life comes from and returns to, and this becomes religious symbolism applied to a dress standard.  Does that give the brown bag requirement moral value?  I don't think it does.  I'm talking about determining what the core gospel principles are and thinking about whether the rules and requirements are a net positive on those principles or a net negative, do they promote or hinder the underlying morals of the gospel.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours 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

 

Might be fun for a day or two.  I've never been a fan of wearing a skirt.  I tried a kilt once, and that was enough for me! 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

You are obscuring the issue a bit.  No, our focus IS on the core of the gospel.  That is precisely the purpose of promoting a clean environment free of external distractions in the temples.  This allows participants to more fully FOCUS on the core ordinances and temple rituals.  The purpose is for us to turn inward.  The bigger fish that you should be frying is materialism in society.  Materialism is the preoccupation with the material and exterior world as opposed to the spiritual and interior world.  Society at large is sick with materialism and affluenza which distracts us from the things that matter.  That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

The sole purpose of the temple and its rules of cleanliness and order are to turn us inward, even by promoting an orderly and clean exterior to assist our attention inward.  The idea is to REMOVE our attention from the exterior by eliminating distractions which may call attention to themselves.  I recognize that external "distractions" are entirely subjective, but the intent behind the external orderliness of temples is to relax us into the internal. They should not be accused of any "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane".  What if the temples stopped emptying waste baskets in their kitchens and the temple smelled of rotten food?  What if people were allowed to talk on their phones or play music during the temple sessions?  What if clothes were optional?  The point is that some focus on the "exterior" and "mundane" is important to promote a quite, peaceful inward focus.

No one would accuse Buddhist monks of having a "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane" for not wearing beards, yet they take it a step further and shave their heads as well as a sign of their commitment to the Holy Life (brahmacarya), and they wear simple and plain robes.  You should view this policy (as outdated as it may be) as a sign of commitment to the Holy Life for the LDS.

If you are going to fight against something, fight against materialism, but leave the practices of Mormon temples and Buddhist monks alone who's intention and focus is inward.  I suspect that the more mainstream the beard gets in society, we will see a change in policy as Elder Oaks predicted in 1971.

Edited February 7, 2017 by pogi

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are obscuring the issue a bit.  No, our focus IS on the core of the gospel.  That is precisely the purpose of promoting a clean environment free of external distractions in the temples.  This allows participants to more fully FOCUS on the core ordinances and temple rituals.  The purpose is for us to turn inward.  The bigger fish that you should be frying is materialism in society.  Materialism is the preoccupation with the material and exterior world as opposed to the spiritual and interior world.  Society at large is sick with materialism and affluenza which distracts us from the things that matter.  That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

The sole purpose of the temple and its rules of cleanliness and order are to turn us inward, even by promoting an orderly and clean exterior to assist our attention inward.  The idea is to REMOVE our attention from the exterior by eliminating distractions which may call attention to themselves.  I recognize that external "distractions" are entirely subjective, but the intent behind the external orderliness of temples is to relax us into the internal. They should not be accused of any "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane".  What if the temples stopped emptying waste baskets in their kitchens and the temple smelled of rotten food?  What if people were allowed to talk on their phones or play music during the temple sessions?  What if clothes were optional?  The point is that some focus on the "exterior" and "mundane" is important to promote a quite, peaceful inward focus.

No one would accuse Buddhist monks of having a "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane" for not wearing beards, yet they take it a step further and shave their heads as well as a sign of their commitment to the Holy Life (brahmacarya), and they wear simple and plain robes.  You should view this policy (as outdated as it may be) as a sign of commitment to the Holy Life for the LDS.

If you are going to fight against something, fight against materialism, but leave the practices of Mormon temples and Buddhist monks alone who's intention and focus is inward.  I suspect that the more mainstream the beard gets in society, we will see a change in policy as Elder Oaks predicted in 1971.

Excellent!

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are obscuring the issue a bit.  No, our focus IS on the core of the gospel.  That is precisely the purpose of promoting a clean environment free of external distractions in the temples.  This allows participants to more fully FOCUS on the core ordinances and temple rituals.  The purpose is for us to turn inward.  The bigger fish that you should be frying is materialism in society.  Materialism is the preoccupation with the material and exterior world as opposed to the spiritual and interior world.  Society at large is sick with materialism and affluenza which distracts us from the things that matter.  That is the opposite of what the church is doing. 

The sole purpose of the temple and its rules of cleanliness and order are to turn us inward, even by promoting an orderly and clean exterior to assist our attention inward.  The idea is to REMOVE our attention from the exterior by eliminating distractions which may call attention to themselves.  I recognize that external "distractions" are entirely subjective, but the intent behind the external orderliness of temples is to relax us into the internal. They should not be accused of any "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane".  What if the temples stopped emptying waste baskets in their kitchens and the temple smelled of rotten food?  What if people were allowed to talk on their phones or play music during the temple sessions?  What if clothes were optional?  The point is that some focus on the "exterior" and "mundane" is important to promote a quite, peaceful inward focus.

No one would accuse Buddhist monks of having a "cancerous focus on the exterior and mundane" for not wearing beards, yet they take it a step further and shave their heads as well as a sign of their commitment to the Holy Life (brahmacarya), and they wear simple and plain robes.  You should view this policy (as outdated as it may be) as a sign of commitment to the Holy Life for the LDS.

If you are going to fight against something, fight against materialism, but leave the practices of Mormon temples and Buddhist monks alone who's intention and focus is inward.  I suspect that the more mainstream the beard gets in society, we will see a change in policy as Elder Oaks predicted in 1971.

Good intentions aren't enough.  I'm asking for real evaluation of the positive and negative elements of the temple.  That means people have to be honest and open enough to consider negatives.  Typical discussions include defense of the status quo, not an honest assessment.  

As for what's core, just that discussion alone is a good starting place.  What is core to the gospel?  Is it rituals as you've proposed?  I would argue no, I would argue that core to the gospel is the commandment of love (God & neighbor).  Materialism in the church is an issue, that can be part of the inward focus is an evaluation of our church culture instead of society at large, LDS society.  What kind of things are materialistic in the church, do we spend to much money on our temples, do we spend enough resources helping the poor and needy.  

Then I agree with everything you said about inward focus, but does the temple aid in our focus on the inward, I think sometimes the glitz and glamour of the edifice can be a distraction from that inward focus.  Should our temples be more plain?  

The Buddist example is just how that particular group of people choose to show respect, others grow facial hair as a sign of commitment to God.  These are all just traditions influenced by culture.  God doesn't care if you cut your hair or let it grow.  

Yes, fighting against materialism is good, I agree, lets fight against the rampant materialism in our church, elaborate temples, shopping malls, real estate developments.  I'm not always pointing the finger of blame at the church, but too often I see that people have a knee jerk defensiveness about their own situation, church, family, and are unwilling to look in the mirror on these things.  Tradition for tradition's sake is not a strong justification in my book.  

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/5/2017 at 2:35 PM, bluebell said:

My issue is, some male temple workers are asked to be clean shaven. Others aren't. 

Which means that it's based on the individual temple president's feelings and not on anything doctrinal. And sacrifice just for sacrifice's sake can cause more problems than it solves.

I agree that following the dictates of the temple president isn't a difficult thing, but I hope that someday soon we won't have to follow arbitrary standards. 

We have one example of a beard in a temple, and from that we can clud that it is in the purview of the temple president to make changes and that those changes are arbitrate throughout the church.

I would question the logic of all that.

I have seen training films in the temple which say that the workers should be clean-shaven. I just saw that within the last two weeks or so. Those don't come from Temple presidents. What one Temple president decided in one Temple I think does not make your case.

Now I want all the rep points you got for that comment.

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We have one example of a beard in a temple, and from that we can clud that it is in the purview of the temple president to make changes and that those changes are arbitrate throughout the church.

I would question the logic of all that.

I have seen training films in the temple which say that the workers should be clean-shaven. I just saw that within the last two weeks or so. Those don't come from Temple presidents. What one Temple president decided in one Temple I think does not make your case.

Now I want all the rep points you got for that comment.

 

Question away.  I'm not trying to make a case, i'm expressing my opinion and explaining why it is what it is.  I'm completely fine if you don't agree with it.  I certain don't agree with yours and i'm sure you're not losing any sleep over that.  

It seems very logical to me to suggest that the grooming standards for men's facial hair the temple are arbitrary--based more on leaders' personal opinions and feelings than on anything else.

Edited February 7, 2017 by bluebell
The tone seemed grumpy

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I disagree how the word "should" was used in the OP.  I don't read it as optional or flexible.  I highly doubt that the leader who crafted this message was just giving a suggestion that can or can't be followed by the temple workers.  I think they expect these rules to be followed.  

I also disagree that the potential symbolism is a proof of moral value.  Lets say its a requirement for all temple workers to wear a brown bag on their head during their service in the temple.  Then lets say that someone comes up with some symbolism around the brown bag, that makes them think of the soil of the earth, and that same soil that all life comes from and returns to, and this becomes religious symbolism applied to a dress standard.  Does that give the brown bag requirement moral value?  I don't think it does.  I'm talking about determining what the core gospel principles are and thinking about whether the rules and requirements are a net positive on those principles or a net negative, do they promote or hinder the underlying morals of the gospel.  

“Should” expresses an obligation, but is less directive than say, “shall.” Exceptions have been pointed out (with beards and athletic shoes, for example). Exceptions are also allowed in the ritual procedures.

Both the symbolism of the brown bag and the requirement to wear it have moral value in that they inspire moral attitudes. But the purpose (in this case, symbolism) is built into the requirement when making it -- the requirement doesn’t come out of nowhere -- and then the symbolism is both taught to and discovered by the abiding party.

Some examples: The brother of Jared had a purpose (light the barges) before he was challenged to come up with the means (selected stones). Also see Moses 1;30-33; Alma 37:7. The same with “types” that were designed with a specific symbolic purpose in mind (Mosiah 3;13; Alma 13;16; 33:19,20).

I also think the Gospel is far more than a set of morals, but a practice for gaining superior ideas and qualities such as charity, wisdom, altruism, humility, oneness and atonement, etc. that some might consider part of their moral code.

It doesn’t make sense that, if their symbolism does not prove moral value, the grooming standards symbolically prove moral compromise.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Question away.  I'm not trying to make a case, i'm expressing my opinion and explaining why it is what it is.  I'm completely fine if you don't agree with it.  I certain don't agree with yours and i'm sure you're not losing any sleep over that.

It seems very logical to me to suggest that the grooming standards for men's facial hair the temple are arbitrary--based more on leaders' personal opinions and feelings than on anything else.

That may well be the case, but symbolically, the temple president represents the Lord, and we can reflect upon our attitude toward Him when we choose to comply, as we also do when we ask for mercy, understanding and grace in seeking an exception.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

That may well be the case, but symbolically, the temple president represents the Lord, and we can reflect upon our attitude toward Him when we choose to comply, as we also do when we ask for mercy, understanding and grace in seeking an exception.

I have never heard it taught that the temple president represents the Lord.  Can you share a reference for that?

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...that discussion alone is a good starting place.  What is core to the gospel?  Is it rituals as you've proposed?  I would argue no, I would argue that core to the gospel is the commandment of love (God & neighbor).  

I don't disagree with your assessment as to what is "core", but rituals and ordinances are important tools which help us to internalize and express outwardly our love of God & neighbor.  Are you suggesting that temple rituals and ordinances are a distraction from the core of the gospel?

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The Buddist example is just how that particular group of people choose to show respect, others grow facial hair as a sign of commitment to God.  These are all just traditions influenced by culture.  God doesn't care if you cut your hair or let it grow.  

It is more symbolic for the Buddhist monk than a "show of respect", but I get what you are saying and don't disagree.  These are all just traditions influenced by culture, but there is nothing wrong with traditions or culture which assist us in removing exterior distractions to focus inward.  There are many cultural and traditional practices in meditation which assist us in removing distractions from our mind, and we are better for them. 

This practice of being clean shaven doesn't seem to be a distraction for temple workers, and I am certain that many would argue that being clean shaven removes external distractions for patrons, so why are you choosing to be distracted for them?  I love beards, I have worn a beard for almost 10 years now and see nothing wrong with them.  I personally view the beard policy as an outdated policy, but lets not make it anything more than that...because it isn't.

You are right, God doesn't care if you cut your hair or let it grow.  It is not about the hair!  Elder Oaks acknowledges that there is nothing inherently evil about long hair or beards.  Read the link I provided for a proper perspective on this issue. You are making hyperbolic statement about facial hair (or the lack thereof) as a sign of "materialsm".  That is ridiculous and a distraction from bigger issues!

 

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“Should” expresses an obligation, but is less directive than say, “shall.” Exceptions have been pointed out (with beards and athletic shoes, for example). Exceptions are also allowed in the ritual procedures.

Both the symbolism of the brown bag and the requirement to wear it have moral value in that they inspire moral attitudes. But the purpose (in this case, symbolism) is built into the requirement when making it -- the requirement doesn’t come out of nowhere -- and then the symbolism is both taught to and discovered by the abiding party.

Some examples: The brother of Jared had a purpose (light the barges) before he was challenged to come up with the means (selected stones). Also see Moses 1;30-33; Alma 37:7. The same with “types” that were designed with a specific symbolic purpose in mind (Mosiah 3;13; Alma 13;16; 33:19,20).

I also think the Gospel is far more than a set of morals, but a practice for gaining superior ideas and qualities such as charity, wisdom, altruism, humility, oneness and atonement, etc. that some might consider part of their moral code.

It doesn’t make sense that, if their symbolism does not prove moral value, the grooming standards symbolically prove moral compromise.

Sometimes I think the requirements come out of fear and a desire to keep up appearances, which makes those requirements superficial and run counter to the underlying core morals of the gospel message.  For profit corporations and governments have this problem too, its not unique to Mormonism.  This creates a need for constant re-evaluation and re-prioritization in order to get back to the basics.  

I do think standards can change, be improved and updated.  I don't claim that all the standards are all morally compromised, thats too binary of thinking.  

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't disagree with your assessment as to what is "core", but rituals and ordinances are important tools which help us to internalize and express outwardly our love of God & neighbor.  Are you suggesting that temple rituals and ordinances are a distraction from the core of the gospel?

Thats an interesting question, I think the answer is possibly yes.  I do wonder why we spend so many resources on the temple, both time and money.  I think its something that should be evaluated, just like all the rules and policies.  

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, God doesn't care if you cut your hair or let it grow.  It is not about the hair!  Elder Oaks acknowledges that there is nothing inherently evil about long hair or beards.  Read the link I provided for a proper perspective on this issue. You are making hyperbolic statement about facial hair (or the lack thereof) as a sign of "materialsm".  That is ridiculous and a distraction from bigger issue

That Elder Oaks felt the need to make a comment like this (nothing evil about long hair or beards) is evidence to me that our culture has taken conformance to dress and grooming standards to an extreme level.  I'm not focusing in just on facial hair by any means, I started talking about color and dress.  All of it should be re-evaluated.  It would be nice if this was a public discussion with input gathered from the members, and a diverse worldwide membership at that.  (common consent in the information age!)

Could have some amazing changes occur that might just enhance the symbolism and minimize the negative elements.  We can always get better and improve.  Lots of fear in a conservative organization whenever someone suggests making changes or that something isn't working well in its current format.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Question away.  I'm not trying to make a case, i'm expressing my opinion and explaining why it is what it is.  I'm completely fine if you don't agree with it.  I certain don't agree with yours and i'm sure you're not losing any sleep over that.  

It seems very logical to me to suggest that the grooming standards for men's facial hair the temple are arbitrary--based more on leaders' personal opinions and feelings than on anything else.

Or it could be based on inspiration (revelation) received by Church leaders acting in their divinely appointed callings.

This is not to say there could not be a change in the policy in the future. The beauty of ongoing revelation is that it can address changing conditions and circumstances in the world and among the covenant people of God.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not everyone can be a GA!

And yes, you are still way ahead of me in rep points. Not everyone is called to be a rep point millionaire!  Grrrr

 

It was not so long ago that your accumulation exceeded mine.

I'm nearing 12,000 points. I've been toying with the idea, once I pass that milestone, of cutting back on if not curtailing my posting here. That would leave the way open for someone else -- probably bluebell or Nehor, the way things stand now -- to take over the number 2 position behind Calm.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I have never heard it taught that the temple president represents the Lord.  Can you share a reference for that?

In general, the presiding priesthood authority at any service or in any church organization represents and acts in the name of the Lord. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by ksfisher

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Question away.  I'm not trying to make a case, i'm expressing my opinion and explaining why it is what it is.  I'm completely fine if you don't agree with it.  I certain don't agree with yours and i'm sure you're not losing any sleep over that.  

It seems very logical to me to suggest that the grooming standards for men's facial hair the temple are arbitrary--based more on leaders' personal opinions and feelings than on anything else.

OK fair enough.

The temple training films make it clear that it comes from the Temple Department but I can't prove that to you.   I suppose a compromise would be that, like manuals, policies can be adjusted by local authorities but I have never seen an example of that in the LA temple or any other I have been in- all I know is what I have seen in the temple training films and I have personally never seen an ordinance worker with a beard or any facial hair- and I would have noticed because I had to shave for a ward council level position.

I understand what you are saying because I have been there myself but have gradually seen the wisdom of it in the temple at least.  For callings outside the temple not so much.

When I was a bishop I was once mildly corrected by a visiting area authority for saying "you guys" over the pulpit .  English doesn't have a second person plural anymore so I guess "y'all " is proper in the south, but "you guys" is not proper in the casual state of California.  I thought he was wrong to correct that.

When I was getting trained in the temple, I learned from a local trainer who had no real authority that a Utah accent was the proper way to pronounce words in the temple.

I was raised in the east so for me the word "preparatory" was pronounced quickly as "prep-er-tory" as in "prep school" whereas he insisted that the correct pronunciation was "pre-pare-a-tory", so in learning the ordinances in addition to memorizing them I had to concentrate on the counter-intuitive way of pronouncing one of the words.   He would not pass me off as knowing the ordinance if I "mispronounced" it.  Because I had to memorize it that way to please one trainer with no authority- I still pronounce it that way in the temple and no where else.

But I am a VERY rebellious and skeptical person so I consider it a tiny sacrifice I "offer up to the Lord"- that is a very Catholic concept. https://www.fisheaters.com/offeringitup.html

 You can take the boy out of Catholicism but you cannot take Catholicism out of the boy.

So I totally get being riled up by stupid arbitrary "rules" made up by one individual without rhyme or reason.  I hate that myself.

But it IS in the temple department training film that workers should be clean shaven whatever that means.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I have never heard it taught that the temple president represents the Lord.  Can you share a reference for that?

Sorry if I got a bit enthusiastic with Google:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/rise-to-your-call?lang=eng

“And so, to everyone, man or woman, girl or boy, who has been called or who will yet be, I give you my counsel. There are a few things you must come to know are true. I will try to put them in words. Only the Lord through the Holy Ghost can put them deep in your heart. Here they are: …

“You are called to represent the Savior. Your voice to testify becomes the same as His voice, your hands to lift the same as His hands. His work is to bless His Father’s spirit children with the opportunity to choose eternal life. So, your calling is to bless lives. That will be true even in the most ordinary tasks you are assigned and in moments when you might be doing something not apparently connected to your call. Just the way you smile or the way you offer to help someone can build their faith. And should you forget who you are, just the way you speak and the way you behave can destroy faith.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-david-o-mckay/chapter-12?lang=eng

“The priesthood is the power and authority to represent God.

“Whenever the priesthood is delegated to man, it is conferred upon him not as a personal distinction, although it becomes such as he honors it, but as authority to represent Deity and an obligation to assist the Lord in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man [see Moses 1:39].

“You are men who hold the priesthood of God, who hold divine authority to represent Deity in whatever position to which you have been assigned…”

“Recognizing the fact that the Creator is the eternal and everlasting source of this power, that he alone can direct it, and that to possess it is to have the right, as an authorized representative, of direct communion with God, how reasonable yet sublime are the privileges and blessings made possible of attainment through the possession of the power and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood—they are the most glorious that the human mind can contemplate.”

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/we-need-living-prophets?lang=eng

“Prophets and apostles who speak today represent and carry out the Lord’s will as they lead His children in this dispensation.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-i-judges-in-israel-watching-over-the-church?lang=eng

“In receiving the confession and waiving the penalties the bishop is representing the Lord.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-david-o-mckay/chapter-13?lang=eng

“And with the restoration to earth of the Holy Priesthood, the Church asserts that this power was again given to chosen men, and that in the house of the Lord where the marriage ceremony is performed by those who are properly authorized to represent our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the union between husband and wife, and between parents and children, is effected for time and all eternity, and that for those thus married the family will continue into the eternities.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple?lang=eng

“Surely, when you appear to be interviewed for a temple recommend you would accept the judgment of him who is designated as the judge in Israel, who is responsible to represent the Lord in determining whether or not it is proper for you to enter this sacred place.”

[BlueDreams]

21 hours 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.

No, I think I still follow you, I just strongly disagree with it. Again, the general definition for pharisaic doesn't denote just having rules but having focusing on rules at the cost of the spirit or greater principles as taught by Christ. Rules....even a lot of them, are not enough to define a pharisaic attitude. They didn't just view it as a legalistic duty, according to the NT it was also a measuring stick for a sense of acceptability, while not only missing Christ but finding his teachings and position as a threat. That is not the attitude I find in the temple. I have the feeling that if Christ came down, said He wanted this or that rule changed...or even parts of the ordinances altered, the church leaders and temple presidency by the vast majority would immediately accept it and also immediately alter course to meet up to expectations.

Talking of your example. As I've mentioned, I did say that some do fall into a pharisaic mindset. But that was not your only position. It was whether or not there's correlation between Temple rules and a person's personal pharisaic attitude. So for your example here. This man chooses and promotes a one piece garment as the better garment for "extra spiritual protection." Is this enabled or promoted by the church? No, quite the opposite. The church gives all sorts of garment fabrics and a number of cuts trying to have a wider range for people's comfort and needs. What the church is doing goes absolutely against what this man is saying. There isn't even a scripture to back this up for him. He's made his preference somehow a spiritual principle.

The rules in and of themselves in the temple are not in someway seen as permanent, extra special, or absolutes. In the time I've worked there I have seen rules change. Most often to accommodate the comfort of the patrons, maintain the (literal...not spiritual) cleanliness of the temple, etc. That's not a super long time either....just under 4 years. And from temple to temple they vary. For example a worker who had moved into our district was surprised how often we in our temple would sit in our posts. In the temple she'd come from it was expected they stand at all times in similar posts. The provo temple never has spanish scriptures on hand while the Bountiful, draper, etc, definitely do. Though there are usually specific reasons given and they may have principles tied in to the gospel (Many are just for practical order or previous concerns) no one thinks that the policies themselves are somehow going to give an extra spiritual boost, make us more holy, or anything of that sort. We know they can change and do. And we are specifically and repeatedly told which is more important in regards to rule-following or spirit. The Spirit.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 7, 2017 by BlueDreams

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or it could be based on inspiration (revelation) received by Church leaders acting in their divinely appointed callings.

This is not to say there could not be a change in the policy in the future. The beauty of ongoing revelation is that it can address changing conditions and circumstances in the world and among the covenant people of God.

Maybe.  I find it less than probable though that God revealed to our leaders that well trimmed beards distract from the temple experience when worn by temple workers.  I still know some stake presidents that require bishops and counselors to be clean shaven (my stake is one).  Is it because the congregation would be distracted by a bishop with a well-trimmed beard?  Of course not.  Does BYU's policy on facial hair have to do with men with beards being distracting on campus?  Nope.

I don't think our leaders are being insincere in the temple and grooming standards that they require and they aren't evil to require them.  I disagree with HJW in that I don't see the requirements as pharisaical.  I just think the standards are based more on our leaders' views on what 'being well groomed and professional' looks like, than on God's revealed outline of distracting grooming standards.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sorry if I got a bit enthusiastic with Google:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/rise-to-your-call?lang=eng

 

“And so, to everyone, man or woman, girl or boy, who has been called or who will yet be, I give you my counsel. There are a few things you must come to know are true. I will try to put them in words. Only the Lord through the Holy Ghost can put them deep in your heart. Here they are: …

 

“You are called to represent the Savior. Your voice to testify becomes the same as His voice, your hands to lift the same as His hands. His work is to bless His Father’s spirit children with the opportunity to choose eternal life. So, your calling is to bless lives. That will be true even in the most ordinary tasks you are assigned and in moments when you might be doing something not apparently connected to your call. Just the way you smile or the way you offer to help someone can build their faith. And should you forget who you are, just the way you speak and the way you behave can destroy faith.”

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-david-o-mckay/chapter-12?lang=eng

 

“The priesthood is the power and authority to represent God.

 

“Whenever the priesthood is delegated to man, it is conferred upon him not as a personal distinction, although it becomes such as he honors it, but as authority to represent Deity and an obligation to assist the Lord in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man [see Moses 1:39].

 

“You are men who hold the priesthood of God, who hold divine authority to represent Deity in whatever position to which you have been assigned…”

 

“Recognizing the fact that the Creator is the eternal and everlasting source of this power, that he alone can direct it, and that to possess it is to have the right, as an authorized representative, of direct communion with God, how reasonable yet sublime are the privileges and blessings made possible of attainment through the possession of the power and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood—they are the most glorious that the human mind can contemplate.”

 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/we-need-living-prophets?lang=eng

 

“Prophets and apostles who speak today represent and carry out the Lord’s will as they lead His children in this dispensation.”

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-i-judges-in-israel-watching-over-the-church?lang=eng

 

“In receiving the confession and waiving the penalties the bishop is representing the Lord.”

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-david-o-mckay/chapter-13?lang=eng

 

“And with the restoration to earth of the Holy Priesthood, the Church asserts that this power was again given to chosen men, and that in the house of the Lord where the marriage ceremony is performed by those who are properly authorized to represent our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the union between husband and wife, and between parents and children, is effected for time and all eternity, and that for those thus married the family will continue into the eternities.”

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple/preparing-to-enter-the-holy-temple?lang=eng

 

“Surely, when you appear to be interviewed for a temple recommend you would accept the judgment of him who is designated as the judge in Israel, who is responsible to represent the Lord in determining whether or not it is proper for you to enter this sacred place.”

 

So, anyone who holds the priesthood or has been called to serve, represents the Lord in that stewardship, and not just the Temple President.  I represented the Lord when i was a missionary, for example.  

I don't disagree with that.  That doesn't mean that policies are above question of course or that we have a duty to agree with everything our leader says or does.