Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Temple calling adjustment


Recommended Posts

Posted

I think this is great news! I have a freshman in high school and time to serve and this could be an option for me now where before I would need to wait 3 more years. Can you have a “bigger” church calling and be a temple worker too?

Posted
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think this is great news! I have a freshman in high school and time to serve and this could be an option for me now where before I would need to wait 3 more years. Can you have a “bigger” church calling and be a temple worker too?

oh yeah! some are probably off limits like Bishops, Stake Presidency, stuff like that

Posted
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

oh yeah! some are probably off limits like Bishops, Stake Presidency, stuff like that

They used to be. Not sure if this policy change alters that.

Posted (edited)

Checked Handbook 1 and bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, District Presidencies, Branch Presidencies, and Area 70s still cannot serve as ordinance workers according to the handbook. Then again, the handbook still also prohibits unmarried males 30 and up from serving unless they are widowers and I know that policy changed.

I am guessing those callings might be allowed to serve in the temple now. They were the only ones restricted so I am not sure who else it could be changing for.

Edited by The Nehor
Posted
52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Checked Handbook 1 and bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, District Presidencies, Branch Presidencies, and Area 70s still cannot serve as ordinance workers according to the handbook. Then again, the handbook still also prohibits unmarried males 30 and up from serving unless they are widowers and I know that policy changed.

I am guessing those callings might be allowed to serve in the temple now. They were the only ones restricted so I am not sure who else it could be changing for.

Well, then I am safe since I am disqualified for those callings. Ward organization Presidents seem to be fine no matter their gender.

Posted
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I had no idea that a veil worker was even a special calling

You could be called as just a veil worker and not as a full ordinance worker.  All you did was worked at the veil.  I had that calling earlier in my life and then later got called as a full ordinance worker.

Posted
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Checked Handbook 1 and bishoprics, Stake Presidencies, District Presidencies, Branch Presidencies, and Area 70s still cannot serve as ordinance workers according to the handbook. Then again, the handbook still also prohibits unmarried males 30 and up from serving unless they are widowers and I know that policy changed.

I am guessing those callings might be allowed to serve in the temple now. They were the only ones restricted so I am not sure who else it could be changing for.

In the temple where I serve, there was an ordinance worker called into a bishopric. He was given the option of whether to continue his temple position. This was fairly recently. 

Posted

Bishops, bishoprics, stake presidents, stake presidencies, etc are no longer exempt from being called as temple ordinance workers. 

I got an email about an hour ago from our temple presidency confirming that. I'm not sure I have the time to take on working in the temple on a regular basis, but I am happy that it is now an option! 

Posted
21 minutes ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

Bishops, bishoprics, stake presidents, stake presidencies, etc are no longer exempt from being called as temple ordinance workers. 

I got an email about an hour ago from our temple presidency confirming that. I'm not sure I have the time to take on working in the temple on a regular basis, but I am happy that it is now an option! 

That’s great!

Posted
3 hours ago, DispensatorMysteriorum said:

Bishops, bishoprics, stake presidents, stake presidencies, etc are no longer exempt from being called as temple ordinance workers. 

I got an email about an hour ago from our temple presidency confirming that. I'm not sure I have the time to take on working in the temple on a regular basis, but I am happy that it is now an option! 

That is hilarious. The First Counselor in our previous Bishopric most wanted to be released so he could work in the temple again. I still doubt many will be able to multitask the callings but a few (retired people mostly) probably could.

4 hours ago, webbles said:

You could be called as just a veil worker and not as a full ordinance worker.  All you did was worked at the veil.  I had that calling earlier in my life and then later got called as a full ordinance worker.

Yeah, I think they have been phasing those out though. They were in my temple. I cannot remember the last time they even asked if there were veil workers present. It has been several years at least.

I think the biggest change is letting sisters with children at home serve if they are able.

Posted

I'm curious how this may effect staffing of temple workers. Many, myself included, opted to be veil workers because we could simply act as veil worker as part of normal temple attendance without having to commit to a number of long shifts each month. While sitting in the chapel prior to going into the endowment a temple worker would typically ask if there were any veil workers in company who could assist. There were usually at least a couple present. It was a nice way to be a temple worker without the commitment of working prescribed shifts throughout the month, especially when there was considerable distance to drive to attend. Now, they will just have to make due with the temple workers who are present and shift them around from place to place a little more quickly to ensure they're all at the veil on time. It will be interesting to see.

Having said all of that, I suspect that the number of veil workers who helped at the veil on a consistent basis may have been pretty small, so maybe this won't be noticeable at all.

Posted
16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm curious how this may effect staffing of temple workers. Many, myself included, opted to be veil workers because we could simply act as veil worker as part of normal temple attendance without having to commit to a number of long shifts each month. While sitting in the chapel prior to going into the endowment a temple worker would typically ask if there were any veil workers in company who could assist. There were usually at least a couple present. It was a nice way to be a temple worker without the commitment of working prescribed shifts throughout the month, especially when there was considerable distance to drive to attend. Now, they will just have to make due with the temple workers who are present and shift them around from place to place a little more quickly to ensure they're all at the veil on time. It will be interesting to see.

Having said all of that, I suspect that the number of veil workers who helped at the veil on a consistent basis may have been pretty small, so maybe this won't be noticeable at all.

I think they are expanding who could serve as a Temple worker, just broadening the base of people.I think they realize in areas like where I live and other areas, we don't have 4000 people to pick from, more like 24 and if you limit it so much you eliminate people who could serve but can't for really no good reason, IMO.

Posted
32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think they are expanding who could serve as a Temple worker, just broadening the base of people.I think they realize in areas like where I live and other areas, we don't have 4000 people to pick from, more like 24 and if you limit it so much you eliminate people who could serve but can't for really no good reason, IMO.

But it's also limiting. At least in my area to be a temple worker you must commit to working 4  6 hour shifts each month. If one can't commit to that they wouldn't even be able to be a veil worker on a very limited, more convenient basis. It broadens the pool by not limiting people by calling, and allowing for women to decide for themselves if they have the time (even if they have children at home), but it removes the possibility for people who can't commit to that much time, still serving in a smaller capacity. But then again, maybe they will get rid of the shift commitments. When I was bishop I could commit and serve as a veil worker. There was no way I could have added the additional shifts on top of my other time commitments

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But it's also limiting. At least in my area to be a temple worker you must commit to working 4  6 hour shifts each month. If one can't commit to that they wouldn't even be able to be a veil worker on a very limited, more convenient basis. It broadens the pool by not limiting people by calling, and allowing for women to decide for themselves if they have the time (even if they have children at home), but it removes the possibility for people who can't commit to that much time, still serving in a smaller capacity. But then again, maybe they will get rid of the shift commitments. When I was bishop I could commit and serve as a veil worker. There was no way I could have added the additional shifts on top of my other time commitments

 

It must be different in every area.  In my parents area, they only had to commit to one Saturday a month.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At least in my area to be a temple worker you must commit to working 4  6 hour shifts each month.

I've been an ordinance worker since the last lot of changes made it possible (so nearly 18 months). I work one shift per month, on a Saturday, but I'm able to pick which weekend it will be so that it can fit in with my work responsibilities and also my other calling serving with the stake presidency. Our shift is only five hours in length, which is nice since the return trip takes four to five hours.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Posted
36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've been an ordinance worker since the last lot of changes made it possible (so nearly 18 months). I work one shift per month, on a Saturday, but I'm able to pick which weekend it will be so that it can fit in with my work responsibilities and also my other calling serving with the stake presidency. Our shift is only five hours in length, which is nice since the return trip takes four to five hours.

that's how it is here, it's 6 hours to the local Temple and so people leave on Friday, serve/attend saturday and they either stay over on sunday or leave saturday

Posted
9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that's how it is here, it's 6 hours to the local Temple and so people leave on Friday, serve/attend saturday and they either stay over on sunday or leave saturday

Yep. I travel to the temple after work on Friday. A room is provided for me for a nominal fee. I get as much sleep as I can, serve, eat, and travel home, arriving about 8:30pm.

Posted
23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Seems to me that we need more temple workers because they’re going to be more temples

In light of how serving in the temple has impacted me, I'd already said/thought that everyone needs to spend time as a temple worker!

Posted

"cell phones and electronic devices can now be used in temple offices for "Family Ordinance Requests and family name cards."

And for secretly recording temple ordinances?

Posted
On 3/1/2019 at 4:47 PM, bsjkki said:

I think this is great news! I have a freshman in high school and time to serve and this could be an option for me now where before I would need to wait 3 more years. Can you have a “bigger” church calling and be a temple worker too?

High Council members may be temple workers, the only callings that were prohibited were being in a bishopric or stake presidency.

I know of a former Temple president and sealer who is now serving as an ordinance worker. of course in all these cases everyone has other callings besides their Temple calling

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...