Temple Grooming Standards

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

I might have sided with you on preparatory.

But I find from this web site that what you call "the Utah accent" is actually the correct way to pronounce that word.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I am having a hard time taking you serious with that comment.  I hope that you are simply lost in the spirit of argument and are not that far displaced to criticize temple work as a distraction from core gospel principles.  Do you understand what we do in temples?  It all ties back to love of God and neighbor.  To complain that temple work is a distraction is radically ignorant of all things spiritual and is a distraction in and of itself.  We are sacrificing of our time, energy, and resources to do the work of salvation in the temples, could there be a GREATER work or more worthy sacrifice?   

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I am all about improvement, but I don't believe in making mountains out of molehills.  I also don't believe in altering ancient symbolism to be more PC.  I find your hyperbole to be distasteful in comparing temple practices to materialism.  To complain about the color white and grooming standards shows that you are a victim of culture and present attitudes yourself.  You care more about appearances than you do about ancient symbology (white) and sacred ritual and ordinances.  As if wearing a beard or different colors in the temple is going to improve our love of God and neighbor somehow, seriously bro, there are bigger fish to fry.  There is a lot of smoke coming from your mouth blinding your vision.    

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 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.

These are the leaders to whom God has committed the keys to the kingdom.  Also, the Lord teaches us in the Doctrine and Covenants that "...it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"  Some of the rules we have may not come through revelation or even inspiration.  But I believe that the Lord still expects us to abide by them until He sees fit make a change.  I really do believe that the Lord stands behind those who commit to serving Him with all their hearts.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

These are the leaders to whom God has committed the keys to the kingdom.  Also, the Lord teaches us in the Doctrine and Covenants that "...it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"  Some of the rules we have may not come through revelation or even inspiration.  But I believe that the Lord still expects us to abide by them until He sees fit make a change.  I really do believe that the Lord stands behind those who commit to serving Him with all their hearts.

The fact that it has been shown quite convincingly here that the instruction comes directly from the Temple Department and is not subject to individual whims that vary from temple to temple holds considerable weight with me. I say this, because I know that the departments of the Church are under the direct supervision of members of the Quorum of the Twelve subject to guidance from the First Presidency.

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

These are the leaders to whom God has committed the keys to the kingdom.  Also, the Lord teaches us in the Doctrine and Covenants that "...it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"  Some of the rules we have may not come through revelation or even inspiration.  But I believe that the Lord still expects us to abide by them until He sees fit make a change.  I really do believe that the Lord stands behind those who commit to serving Him with all their hearts.

I completely agree.  I think that God does validate our sacrifices in His name, even if they were completely unnecessary.   But i also think that He sorrows sometimes when our ideas about what He wants cause us more hardship and struggle than He would ever choose for us.

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I might have sided with you on preparatory.

But I find from this web site that what you call "the Utah accent" is actually the correct way to pronounce that word.

Uh, no, sir I disagree.  

Clearly that's some kind of Limey accent from one of them uppity English folks.  And that good Utah accent was not "prepare-a-tree" like that limey stuff, it was "prepare- a- TORY" with no trees in sight. 

But I never could figger out why a good old Amurican would want to prepare a TORY anyway, dang old Limey redcoats!   

Edited February 7, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.  I think that God does validate our sacrifices in His name, even if they were completely unnecessary.   But i also think that He sorrows sometimes when our ideas about what He wants cause us more hardship and struggle than He would ever choose for us.

Yep- that's that link I sent you above- "offering it up".

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

Would it make you feel better to know that pre-par-a-tory is the correct way to say the word and has nothing to do with having a Utah accent?  

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

My point isn't about any obligation to agree, but about graciously (in the "spiritual gift" sense) appreciating the intent of / meaning behind the symbolism of the calling of temple president, the house he presides over, and the good-faith standards and practices instituted to fulfill its purpose, and then acting accordingly.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

My point isn't about any obligation to agree, but about graciously (in the "spiritual gift" sense) appreciating the intent of / meaning behind the symbolism of the calling of temple president, the house he presides over, and the good-faith standards and practices instituted to fulfill its purpose, and then acting accordingly.

I'm still not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying that HJW or myself (our beliefs on it don't agree but we have both been vocal about our different disagreements) are not 'acting accordingly'?

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

and any depiction of God and Christ show them wearing a beard, so anytime anyone says to me hey shave because God said so i'd be like 'well Percy Persnickety, when God shaves his i'll shave mine' I don't wear a beard but were that the case that is what the next step in that conversation would get them

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am having a hard time taking you serious with that comment.  I hope that you are simply lost in the spirit of argument and are not that far displaced to criticize temple work as a distraction from core gospel principles.  Do you understand what we do in temples?  It all ties back to love of God and neighbor.  To complain that temple work is a distraction is radically ignorant of all things spiritual and is a distraction in and of itself.  We are sacrificing of our time, energy, and resources to do the work of salvation in the temples, could there be a GREATER work or more worthy sacrifice?  

I'm 100% serious, I'm not just bantering for sake of argument.  The ideas of salvation for the dead have evolved quite a bit since the early church.  Wilford Woodruff's change in emphasis is one example.  Theologically we have some belief that all the human family can be saved, but that specific rituals will need to be performed for everyone eventually.  But on the other hand whenever controversy about about whether we should perform these rituals for certain ethic groups comes up, then our theology is flexible enough to account for the idea that God will make up the difference or God will find a way to work those kinks out.  Just extending that idea a little allows me to question whether it is a good use of time and resources, the performance of these rituals over an over for every individual, if God can just work things out in the end.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am all about improvement, but I don't believe in making mountains out of molehills.  I also don't believe in altering ancient symbolism to be more PC.  I find your hyperbole to be distasteful in comparing temple practices to materialism.  To complain about the color white and grooming standards shows that you are a victim of culture and present attitudes yourself.  You care more about appearances than you do about ancient symbology (white) and sacred ritual and ordinances.  As if wearing a beard or different colors in the temple is going to improve our love of God and neighbor somehow, seriously bro, there are bigger fish to fry.  There is a lot of smoke coming from your mouth blinding your vision.    

Slavery is ancient too, that doesn't make it good.  Age doesn't connote intrinsic value.  You seem unwilling to think critically about these issues, choosing to be offended my suggestion that traditions ought to be re-evaluated and changed.  Traditions that you can't defend on their own merit, so instead you tell me that I'm caught up in materialism myself.  The difference is I am totally willing to admit that I'm negatively influenced by materialism and need to do better, where you aren't willing to apply this same kind of critique to the temple traditions we have.  You're starting with an assumption that the status quo is also the ideal and you're unwilling to consider things differently.  Thats ok, this kind of an attitude is common enough.  

[Calm]

"our theology is flexible enough to account for the idea that God will make up the difference or God will find a way to work those kinks out."

Not really.  They are just classed with other problematic groups that we lack the records for or something else interferes with.  The ordinances will all be done for them, just like everyone else, in the Millennium if unable to perform prior to that time.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

5 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

 

Shouldn't that be determined by dividing the number of rep points by the number of posts to get kind of a batting average?

For example, 10,000 posts with 5,000 reps = .500 rpp. 

You would be batting .467 and Scott would be batting .578.

Or, if we figured reps per post, you would have 2.14 rpp and Scott would have 1.73 rpp.

 

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

"our theology is flexible enough to account for the idea that God will make up the difference or God will find a way to work those kinks out."

Not really.  They are just classed with other problematic groups that we lack the records for or something else interferes with.  The ordinances will all be done for them, just like everyone else, in the Millennium if unable to perform prior to that time.

Interesting theory, I've heard it espoused otherwise, it becomes more challenging to reconcile all humans who have ever lived who we have no records for.  God will work those out is the typical answer I hear.  The specific mechanics for how its worked out is anyone's guess, there has been much speculation about the means for fixing these inconsistencies throughout the years.  

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Shouldn't that be determined by dividing the number of rep points by the number of posts to get kind of a batting average?

For example, 10,000 posts with 5,000 reps = .500 rpp. 

You would be batting .467 and Scott would be batting .578.

Or, if we figured reps per post, you would have 2.14 rpp and Scott would have 1.73 rpp.

 

This has been discussed before.

Your idea breaks down when you consider the fact that some on this board pre-dated the introduction of rep points and posted quite prolifically before rep points ever came into being. Calm is a notable example.

So for them (and I am in that category, by the way) any ratio will be skewed by the fact that a substantial portion of their total number of posts were made before there was such a thing as a rep point.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm 100% serious, I'm not just bantering for sake of argument.  The ideas of salvation for the dead have evolved quite a bit since the early church.  Wilford Woodruff's change in emphasis is one example.  Theologically we have some belief that all the human family can be saved, but that specific rituals will need to be performed for everyone eventually.  But on the other hand whenever controversy about about whether we should perform these rituals for certain ethic groups comes up, then our theology is flexible enough to account for the idea that God will make up the difference or God will find a way to work those kinks out.  Just extending that idea a little allows me to question whether it is a good use of time and resources, the performance of these rituals over an over for every individual, if God can just work things out in the end.  

Slavery is ancient too, that doesn't make it good.  Age doesn't connote intrinsic value.  You seem unwilling to think critically about these issues, choosing to be offended my suggestion that traditions ought to be re-evaluated and changed.  Traditions that you can't defend on their own merit, so instead you tell me that I'm caught up in materialism myself.  The difference is I am totally willing to admit that I'm negatively influenced by materialism and need to do better, where you aren't willing to apply this same kind of critique to the temple traditions we have.  You're starting with an assumption that the status quo is also the ideal and you're unwilling to consider things differently.  Thats ok, this kind of an attitude is common enough.  

Calm has answered the first part well.  What you are suggesting is equivalent to procrastination.  It would simply delay the inevitable and necessary work of salvation. 

My point is not that it is sacred because it is ancient, my point is that your devaluing and distortion of ancient symbols is simply presentism at work.  I find the white clothing to be an incredibly powerful symbol.  Your obscured perspective views the color white as divisive, but that is a corrupt understanding of the symbol which is actually a unifying and uniting symbol.   

"In the temple all are dressed alike in white. White is the symbol of purity. No unclean person has the right to enter God’s house. Besides, the uniform [white] dress symbolizes that before God our Father in heaven all men are equal. The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God."

John A. Widtsoe, "Looking toward the Temple," Improvement Era, Oct. 1962, 710.

There is profound beauty in the ancient wisdom and symbol of white clothing.  It is scripturally based and represents redemption from stained garments etc.   There is no need to discard them because hope_for_things chooses to distort ancient symbols with modern racism and skin color.  It is not difficult to distort symbols with modern culture, but it will only serve to obscure your vision.

No, I am not willing to waste my time and energy criticizing temple traditions when their intent and purpose is based on love, unity, and service to our fellow brothers/sister.  Why uproot tradition that has served us so well?  Why turn ritual on its head when you have nothing better to replace it with?  You are simply tearing down when you should be building up. You are corrupting symbols when you should be clarifying them.  Symbols can only be understood through proper perspective.  Mormonism is the proper perspective to understand temple symbols.  When you interpret temple symbols from other cultural perspectives as you are doing, then you will only distort the meaning and miss the message.  Symbols only work when you work them from the intended and proper perspective.

 When you do away with ritual, ordinance and symbols, you will be no different from the secular materialist in no time at all.  They keep us grounded and remind us of our vision and purpose.

I don't think the status quo is the "ideal", I agree that the beard policy is probably out of date, but I find less divisive means to share my opinion.  Let's not distort matters beyond recognition.  I will welcome the day when the beard policy changes, but I also understand why it is in place and how long it takes for some cultural aspects to change.  Patience is a virtue, and "bravery" is not always helpful.  I also understand that this is hardly worth my breath discussing as it is such a superficial issue to get all "courageous" about and take up arms over. 

Even with its outdated policy (as per my personal opinion), I still don't know of a more sacred place on earth than the House of the Lord, so I like to find other more meaningful things to criticize. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Shouldn't that be determined by dividing the number of rep points by the number of posts to get kind of a batting average?

For example, 10,000 posts with 5,000 reps = .500 rpp. 

You would be batting .467 and Scott would be batting .578.

Or, if we figured reps per post, you would have 2.14 rpp and Scott would have 1.73 rpp.

 

I definitely advocate whatever makes me look better without any attempt whatsoever at fairness.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Shouldn't that be determined by dividing the number of rep points by the number of posts to get kind of a batting average?

For example, 10,000 posts with 5,000 reps = .500 rpp. 

You would be batting .467 and Scott would be batting .578.

Or, if we figured reps per post, you would have 2.14 rpp and Scott would have 1.73 rpp.

 

The problem with that is taking into account how many posts are made before they started giving reps.  You could take the number of years since first signing up, divide the total for average yearly posts and then multiple by 5 or however many years it has been since we got rep points.  Doesn't account for variation of posting frequency though.  (No, I don't really take the reps stuff that seriously, just occupying the mind)

[CV75]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm still not sure what you are saying.

Are you saying that HJW or myself (our beliefs on it don't agree but we have both been vocal about our different disagreements) are not 'acting accordingly'?

Not at all – I do not know how either of you are acting, and I have a very liberal tolerance for what others do anyway.

But in exchanging ideas and feelings, and speaking for myself, I appreciate the Lord’s hand and the good intentions of those He called to preside over the temples.  I believe this comes by grace, making it easy for me to abide by and find the good (both practical and symbolic) in the standards they set and the explanations they offer for them. They likewise show grace when exceptions need to be made. It’s all in good [unity of the] faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

The problem with that is taking into account how many posts are made before they started giving reps.  You could take the number of years since first signing up, divide the total for average yearly posts and then multiple by 5 or however many years it has been since we got rep points.  Doesn't account for variation of posting frequency though.  (No, I don't really take the reps stuff that seriously, just occupying the mind)

Its easy to be nonchalant when you're thousands of points in front of the pack. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all – I do not know how either of you are acting, and I have a very liberal tolerance for what others do anyway.

 

But in exchanging ideas and feelings, and speaking for myself, I appreciate the Lord’s hand and the good intentions of those He called to preside over the temples.  I believe this comes by grace, making it easy for me to abide by and find the good (both practical and symbolic) in the standards they set and the explanations they offer for them. They likewise show grace when exceptions need to be made. It’s all in good [unity of the] faith.

 

I agree. 

[Rain]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...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...

Or perhaps all y'all

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Calm has answered the first part well.  What you are suggesting is equivalent to procrastination.  It would simply delay the inevitable and necessary work of salvation. 

My point is not that it is sacred because it is ancient, my point is that your devaluing and distortion of ancient symbols is simply presentism at work.  I find the white clothing to be an incredibly powerful symbol.  Your obscured perspective views the color white as divisive, but that is a corrupt understanding of the symbol which is actually a unifying and uniting symbol.   

"In the temple all are dressed alike in white. White is the symbol of purity. No unclean person has the right to enter God’s house. Besides, the uniform [white] dress symbolizes that before God our Father in heaven all men are equal. The beggar and the banker, the learned and the unlearned, the prince and the pauper sit side by side in the temple and are of equal importance if they live righteously before the Lord God."

John A. Widtsoe, "Looking toward the Temple," Improvement Era, Oct. 1962, 710.

There is profound beauty in the ancient wisdom and symbol of white clothing.  It is scripturally based and represents redemption from stained garments etc.   There is no need to discard them because hope_for_things chooses to distort ancient symbols with modern racism and skin color.  It is not difficult to distort symbols with modern culture, but it will only serve to obscure your vision.

No, I am not willing to waste my time and energy criticizing temple traditions when their intent and purpose is based on love, unity, and service to our fellow brothers/sister.  Why uproot tradition that has served us so well?  Why turn ritual on its head when you have nothing better to replace it with?  You are simply tearing down when you should be building up. You are corrupting symbols when you should be clarifying them.  Symbols can only be understood through proper perspective.  Mormonism is the proper perspective to understand temple symbols.  When you interpret temple symbols from other cultural perspectives as you are doing, then you will only distort the meaning and miss the message.  Symbols only work when you work them from the intended and proper perspective.

 When you do away with ritual, ordinance and symbols, you will be no different from the secular materialist in no time at all.  They keep us grounded and remind us of our vision and purpose.

I don't think the status quo is the "ideal", I agree that the beard policy is probably out of date, but I find less divisive means to share my opinion.  Let's not distort matters beyond recognition.  I will welcome the day when the beard policy changes, but I also understand why it is in place and how long it takes for some cultural aspects to change.  Patience is a virtue, and "bravery" is not always helpful.  I also understand that this is hardly worth my breath discussing as it is such a superficial issue to get all "courageous" about and take up arms over. 

Even with its outdated policy (as per my personal opinion), I still don't know of a more sacred place on earth than the House of the Lord, so I like to find other more meaningful things to criticize. 

I get your perspective, I think many share this perspective, and I appreciate your defense of this perspective because it shows your commitment and trust in a system and love for that system.  However, I don't think you understand my perspective.  

I have a love and trust as well for the institution that has been the foundation of my religious affiliation and the heritage of my family for generations.  Even though you say that the status quo isn't necessarily the ideal, your approach is to accept it because you see no problems that rise to any level of importance in your mind that would justify change.  Just because you are blind to those issues, doesn't mean they don't exist.  

I have become, thanks to my willingness to question and my faith journey in recent years, able to break out of the fog of a complacent allegiance to the system, and to see things from a new perspective.  Now, I'm not proclaiming that all of my perspectives are superior to yours, no, I understand the limits of the human mind and the biases that plague us.  But what I am saying is that from where you are standing, your responses show your inability for objective critical thinking when it comes to constructive evaluation of our contemporary temple tradition.  

You are too invested from your current vantage point to allow for innovation and reconstruction.  You honestly can't even comprehend discarding traditions that you find valuable, even if a new tradition replacing the old were to provide 100 times more value, you would still hold onto the old tradition because of what it means to you.  Its an emotional position, and its understandable, but it is limiting you from seeing things differently.  You fail to see the harm and negative elements of the current system.  Your biases towards the system don't allow for that kind of objectivity.  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I get your perspective, I think many share this perspective, and I appreciate your defense of this perspective because it shows your commitment and trust in a system and love for that system.  However, I don't think you understand my perspective.  

I have a love and trust as well for the institution that has been the foundation of my religious affiliation and the heritage of my family for generations.  Even though you say that the status quo isn't necessarily the ideal, your approach is to accept it because you see no problems that rise to any level of importance in your mind that would justify change.  Just because you are blind to those issues, doesn't mean they don't exist.  

I have become, thanks to my willingness to question and my faith journey in recent years, able to break out of the fog of a complacent allegiance to the system, and to see things from a new perspective.  Now, I'm not proclaiming that all of my perspectives are superior to yours, no, I understand the limits of the human mind and the biases that plague us.  But what I am saying is that from where you are standing, your responses show your inability for objective critical thinking when it comes to constructive evaluation of our contemporary temple tradition.  

You are too invested from your current vantage point to allow for innovation and reconstruction.  You honestly can't even comprehend discarding traditions that you find valuable, even if a new tradition replacing the old were to provide 100 times more value, you would still hold onto the old tradition because of what it means to you.  Its an emotional position, and its understandable, but it is limiting you from seeing things differently.  You fail to see the harm and negative elements of the current system.  Your biases towards the system don't allow for that kind of objectivity.  

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself open minded and willing to use critical thinking to evaluate my traditions - which is why I reject your position.  Don't assume that because I reject your position that I am not using critical thinking.  I am open to innovation and reconstruction; that is what the restoration is all about, but your critical analysis of temple symbols, ritual and ordinance is severely lacking any persuasive substance and evidence.  You have offered no "new tradition" that is "100 times" more valuable to replace the old with.  If you are going to claim the rational position based on critical thinking, please offer me something rational.

I'll tell you what is irrational and unreasonable - dismissing the profound meaning and spirit that members experience with temple symbols and ritual, and doing away with such symbols and ritual because you suspect (without evidence) that there might be something better is reckless, careless, and entirely insensitive to human experience.   

The thing that your critical analysis fails to acknowledge is that "value" IS subjective.  Symbols, ritual, and ordinances are spiritual and cannot be assessed through critical analysis of objective measures.  Wisdom is often lost in knowledge, and knowledge lost in information.  Spiritual practice requires spiritual assessment, any rational/critical thinker would acknowledge that.  You are using the WRONG tools to assess temple ritual, ordinance, and symbols.

I watched this show on Netflix last night called Innsae.  Really great documentary which speaks to the topic at hand.  It discusses the misuse/overuse of "critical thinking" and left brained activity to the neglect of right brained intuition.  It seems to me that you are completely out of touch with "the sea within."  Here is a link, it is worth a watch and might cause you to second guess your hard right brained approach to temple ritual.

https://zeitgeistfilms.com/film/innsaeithepowerofintuition

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by pogi