Church Announces Change in Temple Policies Re: 30+ Men / Divorced Persons

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Reflecting evolving attitudes about gender roles, the LDS Church has revised a couple of policies relating to older single men and divorced members serving as volunteers in Mormon temples.

For years, single men over age 30 and Latter-day Saints who had been divorced within the previous five years were banned from officiating in some temple rituals.

No official reason was ever given for the now-lifted prohibitions.

I think this is a wonderful development.

Quote

“Single endowed men may serve as temple ordinance workers if they are found worthy and properly recommended by their priesthood leaders (no age restrictions),” Eric Hawkins, spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, confirmed this week.

Single women above age 30 already were permitted to serve in that capacity.

The Utah-based faith also eliminated any “waiting period following a divorce” for men and women, Hawkins said. “Divorced, endowed members who are in good standing and hold a current temple recommend may serve as temple ordinance workers if properly recommended by their priesthood leaders.”

Richard Ostler, who has been a temple worker in the iconic Salt Lake LDS Temple for nearly five years, cheered the changes.

“It’s great news,” said Ostler...

I agree 100%

Quote

“I had three divorced men in my singles ward,” he said, “and one wanted to be an ordinance worker.” When the church denied him that chance, the man “felt marginalized.”
His divorce became “a scar, a black mark and changed his path in Mormonism,” Ostler said, “instead of keeping every door open to him.”

Though Ostler is an outspoken advocate for gay Mormons, he doesn’t believe the now-scrapped temple policy on single men over 30 was directed at them.

“My guess is that it was aimed at pushing single [straight] men to get married,” he quipped, repeating the stereotype that an unmarried Mormon man is “a menace to society.”

The result, though, is that the policy also hit Mormon gays who were trying to live the church’s standards. LDS leaders say same-sex attraction isn’t a sin, but acting on it is.

“The path for a single straight woman is different than a gay celibate man,” Ostler said. “She can serve and has hope that marriage could happen someday or in the next life. … There are lots of role models of single women serving in important positions, traveling with other single women, and no one questions their sexuality.”

It’s harder for a single gay LDS man over 30, who, though deemed worthy to worship in the faith’s temples, had been barred from working in them.

“The temple is a place ... where you can feel God’s love,” Ostler said. “Gay men who worked there didn’t feel broken; they felt worthy and part of the team.”

I had not fully grasped the intersection of the previous policy with single gay men over 30.  I am happy to see this change.

Quote

There is one group that remains excluded as temple workers: mothers with children under 18.

Ostler doesn’t think that makes much sense, either.

The temple is a “house of healing and peace, and spiritual, emotional and physical regeneration,” said the father of six, the youngest of whom is in high school. “I would love for my wife to have that same experience. Or to work there together. We both need to get recharged.”

I suspect this policy is an effort to avoid A) mixed messages (emphasizing the importance of mothers, where possible, being in the home to rear children), and B) the accusatory "slippery slope" arguments that would almost certainly follow those mixed messages ("The Church is hypocritical for, on the the one hand, encouraging mothers to rear their children in the home, and on the other hand, having LDS mothers spend time away from their minor children while working in the temple...").

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

Anyone know why single men over 30 weren't allowed to be temple patrons, whilst single women over 30 were? 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Anyone know why single men over 30 weren't allowed to be temple patrons, whilst single women over 30 were? 

Not patrons, officiators.

[Duncan]

In our stake last year when they announced the Temple coming here was approved (it hasn't even begun construction yet.....despite a groundbreaking.....) anyways they read out who basically could be Temple ordinance workers and for our stake with less than active 500 TR holders it was older people with no dependant kids and newly married couples with no kids, which is a few, that could even serve. It seemed like hardly anybody could even do it, or do it with other callings tacked on, so this change is welcome

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not patrons, officiators.

Here's what the article says:

SALT LAKE CITY — Divorced Mormons and single men 31 and older may now serve as temple ordinance workers, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirmed on Wednesday.

Until now, single men could serve as temple ordinance workers through age 30. Women already were eligible to serve beyond age 31.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687431/Single-Mormon-men-over-30-divorcees-now-can-officiate-temple-ordinances.html

[omni]

Is there anyone that will be upset or disappointed with the policy change?

This really is one of those "no-brainer" changes that I would put in the same category as one year waiting period for non-temple marriages.

Hopefully they'll continue to make progress and allow mothers with dependent children the opportunity to serve.  Even if you believe a mother's place is in the home, allowing her to serve for a few hours a day while her children are at school just seems like the right thing to do.

 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Here's what the article says:

SALT LAKE CITY — Divorced Mormons and single men 31 and older may now serve as temple ordinance workers, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirmed on Wednesday.

Until now, single men could serve as temple ordinance workers through age 30. Women already were eligible to serve beyond age 31.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865687431/Single-Mormon-men-over-30-divorcees-now-can-officiate-temple-ordinances.html

Precisely. Officiators, not patrons. Tweeners can be patrons in doing baptisms, being baptized. "Workers" in context means officiators.

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Precisely. Officiators, not patrons. Tweeners can be patrons in doing baptisms, being baptized. "Workers" in context means officiators.

Either way, the article states that what 30+ year old single men can now do, 30+ single women and single men -30 were already eligible to do.

What was the problem with 30+ year old single men doing what -30 single men and +30 single women have always been able to do?

Or put another way, as a single man aged 30 I could be a temple worker, but when my birthday came round and I turn 31, suddenly I can't for no other reason than my age. What's at play here?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Either way, the article states that what 30+ year old single men can now do, 30+ single women and single men -30 were already eligible to do.

What was the problem with 30+ year old single men doing what -30 single men and +30 single women have always been able to do?

Scott nailed it, I think:  men over 30 who are single are a menace to society.

Or were.

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Scott nailed it, I think:  men over 30 who are single are a menace to society.

Or were.

So you don't know, okay, thanks.

Does anyone else know the previous rationale behind prohibiting single 30+ men from doing what single 30- men could do in the temple?

Edited August 25, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, omni said:

Is there anyone that will be upset or disappointed with the policy change?

This really is one of those "no-brainer" changes that I would put in the same category as one year waiting period for non-temple marriages.

Hopefully they'll continue to make progress and allow mothers with dependent children the opportunity to serve.  Even if you believe a mother's place is in the home, allowing her to serve for a few hours a day while her children are at school just seems like the right thing to do.

And the "slippery slope" arguments commence!

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you don't know, okay, thanks.

Does anyone else know the previous rationale behind prohibiting single 30+ men from doing what single 30- men could do in the temple?

I haven't heard the reasons behind the past policy.  However, I know that exceptions were made (at least at our local temple).  I personally know of 2 divorced men who were allowed to be ordinance workers (and were over 30 and single).  I believe they had to get permission from first the temple president and then quite possibly from Salt Lake.  But, I'm not sure about that.  One of them is in my ward and served as an ordinance worker prior to his divorce and then was able to continue serving after his divorce.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Either way, the article states that what 30+ year old single men can now do, 30+ single women and single men -30 were already eligible to do.

What was the problem with 30+ year old single men doing what -30 single men and +30 single women have always been able to do?

Or put another way, as a single man aged 30 I could be a temple worker, but when my birthday came round and I turn 31, suddenly I can't for no other reason than my age. What's at play here?

I was booted at 31. The suspected crass reason was commonly stated as 'if you do not know what he temple is for by now you should not officiate'. There was no official explanation given though I could see suspicion of predatory males making women uncomfortable in the temple as a possibility. That is main reason they kick 31 and ups out of YSA wards. Even some leaders did not know of this policy. A couple years ago a kindly member of my stake presidency asked if I would be willing to serve as a temple worker. I responded that I would love to but was too old. He checked and then apologized.

Edited August 25, 2017 by The Nehor

[Oliblish]

Maybe there are some areas with sparse LDS populations where it is getting difficult to fully staff a temple.  This would open up the pool of available temple workers where a sizable percentage of the worthy priesthood holders are already busy filling stake and ward/branch leadership roles.  

Just a guess...

[Kenngo1969]

Ha!  I beat the venerable Smac97 to the punch (Neener-neener!)  

 

There's already a thread open about this in Social Hall, but I have no objections to this one staying open.  

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Maybe there are some areas with sparse LDS populations where it is getting difficult to fully staff a temple.  This would open up the pool of available temple workers where a sizable percentage of the worthy priesthood holders are already busy filling stake and ward/branch leadership roles.  

Just a guess...

This is also the reason I suspect for the change. Many temples are hurting for male ordinance workers. I do not think it is because they really wanted to make the change. My brother is elated. He also got booted when he turned 31 without marriage but he stayed on as a volunteer ever since.

Edited August 25, 2017 by The Nehor

[USU78]

I think I may have just had an apostrophe:

30+ men with no prospect of marriage retreating into quasimonastitude as Veil Workers looks a lot like  ...  what again?  That could easily account for the prior policy, though I've never seen it explained in any terms, let alone squeamishness about RC monasticism.

[bluebell]

I'm waiting for them to realize how much good it would do for the mothers in the church to be able to be ordnance workers before all of their children are out of the home. But that is wonderful news about single men and divorced members.  I had no idea they weren't allowed to serve in that capacity.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I think I may have just had an apostrophe:

I think you mean epiphany.   

[omni]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And the "slippery slope" arguments commence!

Thanks,

-Smac

Slippery slope?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume "valid" was autocorrected to "slippery slope".

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I think this is a wonderful development.

I agree 100%

I had not fully grasped the intersection of the previous policy with single gay men over 30.  I am happy to see this change.

I suspect this policy is an effort to avoid A) mixed messages (emphasizing the importance of mothers, where possible, being in the home to rear children), and B) the accusatory "slippery slope" arguments that would almost certainly follow those mixed messages ("The Church is hypocritical for, on the the one hand, encouraging mothers to rear their children in the home, and on the other hand, having LDS mothers spend time away from their minor children while working in the temple...").

Thanks,

-Smac

Cool.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect this policy is an effort to avoid A) mixed messages (emphasizing the importance of mothers, where possible, being in the home to rear children), and B) the accusatory "slippery slope" arguments that would almost certainly follow those mixed messages ("The Church is hypocritical for, on the the one hand, encouraging mothers to rear their children in the home, and on the other hand, having LDS mothers spend time away from their minor children while working in the temple...").

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't understand argument B and I don't see how the church would be concerned at it in regards to their policy on mothers in the temple.

I have four kids, the oldest is 15 and the youngest just turned 3.  I'm the YW's president and I am asked to be out of the home all. the. time.  

My obligations are far FAR more intensive than working in the temple once a week would ever be.  If the church doesn't have a single problem asking me to be gone for more than a week each summer with girls camp, and Daughters of Zion camps, and overnights for Youth Stake conferences, not to mention the many weeknights and saturdays that the church expects me to almost exclusively dedicate to the church's youth program, I can't imagine that they would be at all worried that me being in the temple for a few hours once a week would send a mixed message.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand argument B and I don't see how the church would be concerned at it in regards to their policy on mothers in the temple.

I have four kids, the oldest is 15 and the youngest just turned 3.  I'm the YW's president and I am asked to be out of the home all. the. time.  

My obligations are far FAR more intensive than working in the temple once a week would ever be.  If the church doesn't have a single problem asking me to be gone for more than a week each summer with girls camp, and Daughters of Zion camps, and overnights for Youth Stake conferences, not to mention the many weeknights and saturdays that the church expects me to almost exclusively dedicate to the church's youth program, I can't imagine that they would be at all worried that me being in the temple for a few hours once a week would send a mixed message.

You forgot Trek.  And activity days.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you don't know, okay, thanks.

Does anyone else know the previous rationale behind prohibiting single 30+ men from doing what single 30- men could do in the temple?

Speculation but well founded :

Men of that age group should be spending time dating etc in order to get married.  As has been said, THAT is the purpose of the temple.  Being an ordinance worker can be "addictive" if done during a time in your life when you should be occupied with other pursuits.  It is very very pleasant and rewarding and comfortable to be an ordinance worker, plus feeling the spirit in great abundance.  But this world is about getting on in life and being productive as well as being spiritual.  We are to be IN the world but not of it- and in the temple it is very easy to NEVER be IN the world.  We are not a monastic church and in effect one could easily become a temple "monk".

I know one brother who is married, no children, and his wife lives over seas (he is in his 40's) pending receiving a visa to come here and become a citizen. 

He goes to his job every day, and comes to the temple and works another 6 hours in the temple virtually every day.

He is in effect a "temple monk".  It's fine for him- married no kids, and his wife not available.   In fact it keeps him out of trouble being tempted to do other things in the world like visiting bars etc.  The guy is lonely without his wife and seeks friendship as anyone would.  The temple is a perfect solution for him

But his circumstance is highly unusual.

Again- I think it is great that now individual decisions and judgement of individual circumstances is now possible- it should have always been so, imo.

But I am convinced that this was the rationale behind the policy in the past- but again- that is pure speculation on my part.

Single men above 31 should be actively engaged in getting married and dating as much as possible

But now there are more options, and that is a good thing that should be left to the individual rather than mandated by someone else.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Oliblish said:

Maybe there are some areas with sparse LDS populations where it is getting difficult to fully staff a temple.  This would open up the pool of available temple workers where a sizable percentage of the worthy priesthood holders are already busy filling stake and ward/branch leadership roles.  

Just a guess...

That is also definitely an issue.