Jump to content

Temple workers and cultural identity


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Calm said:

A former stake president turned it into a test of obedience when I asked him if my husband would have to shave his beautiful beard when he became an HC.  Honestly I would have respected him more if he had just said "it's a pet peeve of mine, hope you understand" or just said it's expected like missionaries wearing suits.  I lost some respect for him that day.  There are so many things we need to be obedient for coming up with arbitrary trivial tests to prove someone's spiritual worthiness is petty in my view.

umm, what about the WoW? 

Link to comment

I came across this Ensign article this morning which I think is pertinent to this discussion: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/07/religious-identity-like-marrow-in-our-bones?lang=eng

On one hand: "Modern life has afforded us enormous freedom. We are free like never before to become what and who we want to be. As sources of individual meaning have proliferated, we now better understand that respect for human dignity requires appropriate accommodation of the many ways human identity finds expression. With that realization have come, albeit sometimes slowly, greater social acceptance of those once marginalized and greater legal safeguards to protect basic human rights and to accommodate people’s identities."

On the other: "But too often secular elites and government officials focus so much on certain favored identities—such as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity—that they miss the importance of religion as a profound source of identity."

His conclusion: "But I believe that religious and secular people of goodwill have big enough hearts, broad enough minds, and strong enough wills to forge the hard compromises that will allow all of us, whatever our identities, to live together in dignity, respect, and peace. It is to that task that we must commit ourselves for the good of all."

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m guessing Calm doesn’t see the WoW as a made up “arbitrary trivial test” to prove our spiritual worthiness. 

Is that how you view it?

Well many on here have mentioned that WoW is more an obedience law. And like Calm, that disturbs me, I'd rather the church put it in place for our health. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well many on here have mentioned that WoW is more an obedience law. And like Calm, that disturbs me, I'd rather the church put it in place for our health. 

Can't it be both, and a few other things at once?

Is not smoking about worthless obedience?

Does it keep us out of bars and other situations which make it easier to sin and give cultural distance from such a lifestyle?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

umm, what about the WoW? 

Don’t see that as arbitrary as there were reasons provided as well as promises. This was simply a ‘would you obey it if required?’ with nothing else attached or explained.  If he had explained why, even if it was just something he didn’t like, that would have made a big difference for me. 

I am okay with God giving commandments without a lot of info because I trust his thinking process (and I am talking about commandments I believe are from him, most having been confirmed as such in some fashion).  For those given by others, including leaders, I prefer to hear their reasons for it. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 7/6/2019 at 6:46 AM, BlueDreams said:

This story was a bit of a big deal in some of  the black social groups. Before it could be rectified it caused a number of people to actually call the temple (from what i read) and several were very frustrated with the temple president’s initial decision. But it came with a very positive ending and represents to me a part of the cultural church that could be removed. In our stake there’s still this (dumb) expectation that people with certain male leadership callings must be shaved and hair cut short. 

But beyond hair I think it points to something that i see as a major thrust in President Nelson’s goals and actions: to help better separate church culture from gospel doctrine. I see this in several changes to temple policies to allow more people to serve as temple workers who are otherwise worthy to do so. I also see it in general church initiatives, such as the hymn book, to better represent what people in varying areas view as spiritual. 

Here I see this sometimes when people often extrapolate what happens in Utah or their own individual ward to represent the whole of the church. It can be a nice reminder that our assumptions based on a geographic location may sincerely not hold in another area or even a ward over. 

 

Also liked the quote at the end: The Lord asked us to be one, not to be the same

 

 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/payson-temple-worker-s-hairstyle-opens-bigger-discussion-on-diversity/article_6c57851c-55f5-5d7f-b3ee-d83decf59063.html?fbclid=IwAR05G_ja6GudYFOatfqvmNVS260xPwhXsGUfrTl49HtsdPXDb0IXF1S7c6M

 

Anyways thought i’d share and see what others here thought of the article. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

I also work at the Payson Temple on Saturdays. He is welcome to come work with me. I like his style.

Link to comment
  • 6 months later...

Being a (long time) convert to the Church, I can always discern what is part of the "LDS belt" (Utah, Idaho) and/or local culture vs. actual doctrine. I lived in CA for many years and changes in the bishopric brought also changes in practices and attitude based on where the Bishops came from. In contrast, the culture of the Church is significantly different outside of the US. And because leaders are either converts or fist generation born in the Church, they have no such links to "dogmatic" practices that have no actual doctrinal foundation. 

Link to comment
On 7/7/2019 at 4:08 PM, Calm said:

Don’t see that as arbitrary as there were reasons provided as well as promises. This was simply a ‘would you obey it if required?’ with nothing else attached or explained.  If he had explained why, even if it was just something he didn’t like, that would have made a big difference for me. 

I am okay with God giving commandments without a lot of info because I trust his thinking process (and I am talking about commandments I believe are from him, most having been confirmed as such in some fashion).  For those given by others, including leaders, I prefer to hear their reasons for it. 

I think President Oaks made the point that God rarely gives reasoning behind His commandments. 
 

Quite often, the reasoning becomes clearer the more we obey, but we are left to discover it on our own. I believe that is part of our growth process. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think President Oaks made the point that God rarely gives reasoning behind His commandments. 

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the current 'dress and grooming standards' in our temples are only about 20 years old, and they came with an explanation from the Temple Department: people had been complaining about inconsistent appearance across multiple temples. No one even pretended or intimated that the proposed solution was inspired; instead, it was designed to satisfy whingers.

I'm still waiting for these rules to unravel. I think we're getting closer.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the current 'dress and grooming standards' in our temples are only about 20 years old, and they came with an explanation from the Temple Department: people had been complaining about inconsistent appearance across multiple temples. No one even pretended or intimated that the proposed solution was inspired; instead, it was designed to satisfy whingers.

I'm still waiting for these rules to unravel. I think we're getting closer.

Point taken, but that’s not what I was alluding to. I was addressing the broader principle about whether God is to be expected to give reasons for His commandments. I’m not interested in a back-and-forth about current temple policies. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Oaks made the point that God rarely gives reasoning behind His commandments. 

This is a response to a post I made back in July, so I am unsure of your purpose. Are you disagreeing with something I said or agreeing or something else?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

This is a response to a post I made back in July, so I am unsure of your purpose. Are you disagreeing with something I said or agreeing or something else?

I’m enlarging on and affirming what you said in your post by mentioning a statement President Oaks made. 
 

Are we being a tad hypersensitive here? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m enlarging on and affirming what you said in your post by mentioning a statement President Oaks made. 
 

Are we being a tad hypersensitive here? 

Not at all. I assumed that is what you were doing strictly from the two posts, but I thought it possible the past context might have added a nuance I didn’t register that you might be expecting a response for and I try to respond if appropriate to those who take the time to respond to me out of respect....but too lazy today to go back and read enough of the thread to remember the context. 
 

So I figured I would instead just ask so I didn’t leave you hanging expecting a response. :)

Ack...my writing is awful today even after multiple proofings.  And for once I can't claim lack of sleep.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not at all. I assumed that is what you were doing strictly from the two posts, but I thought it possible the past context might have added a nuance I didn’t register that you might be expecting a response for and I try to respond if appropriate to those who take the time to respond to me out of respect....but too lazy today to go back and read enough of the thread to remember the context. 
 

So I figured I would instead just ask so I didn’t leave you hanging expecting a response. :)

Ack...my writing is awful today even after multiple proofings.  And for once I can't claim lack of sleep.

Good to the bold!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not at all. I assumed that is what you were doing strictly from the two posts, but I thought it possible the past context might have added a nuance I didn’t register that you might be expecting a response for and I try to respond if appropriate to those who take the time to respond to me out of respect....but too lazy today to go back and read enough of the thread to remember the context. 
 

So I figured I would instead just ask so I didn’t leave you hanging expecting a response. :)

Ack...my writing is awful today even after multiple proofings.  And for once I can't claim lack of sleep.

Your writing is fine. 

Link to comment
On 7/6/2019 at 7:22 PM, Storm Rider said:

Calm, do you understand what I mean when I say free form dreadlocks? No one that wears free form washes their hair regardless of race. It is impossible to wash because of the of the purpose of the free form dreadlocks. The point is, if this young lady wanted to work in the temple, I would guess the TP would say no and he should say no due to cleanliness of wearing free form dreadlocks. 

When I looked at the picture of the young man, he appeared to be wearing free form dreadlocks, which I know you don't wash. Based on that, cleanliness is why it would be appropriate to say, "No". Saying yes to a temple worker wearing free form dreadlocks would be a double standing, not racist. 

In the peak of my hippie days I had free-form dreadlocks. Free-form meant that I let them form naturally rather than forcing them. I did often separate them in the early stages so that I didn't end up with one mono-lock. I followed some friends' advice on how to get them started and it involved washing my hair every day with clarifying shampoo. The point was to get rid of oil because oil is greasy and keeps the hair from matting. What I was to studiously avoid was conditioner, whose purpose is stop matting. I often stuck my head out the car window when I was a passenger -- wind works wonders for starting dreads!

Once the locks were in I would wash my hair every 5-7 days. Every day would mean that the inside of the lock would never dry and that would be bad. My hair wouldn't be greasy or anything -- it seems the locks took care of that. It worked out fine.

So I don't know what your friend's daughter was up to, but it's not what I nor my friends did. Also, a hippie's locks often look quite different and definitely have a different purpose than the locks of the man in the article.

ETA: I didn't realize this thread was from last year.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

: I didn't realize this thread was from last year.

As far as I can tell, Storm Rider never acknowledged his info was incorrect and given his above post where he is more or less lecturing on freeform, I don't think it would be a bad idea for him to show some sign he has read yours and others' correct info, so posters know their info was useful and not ignored.

Link to comment
On 7/6/2019 at 7:33 AM, longview said:

I have a lifelong friend who is a biker with long hair and beard and likes to wear Harley Davidson paraphernalia.  He and I would attend the Bountiful Temple and there are always patrons who do a double take.

Does he ride his Harley to the temple sometimes?  Now that would be a sight I would like to see.  A Harley with saddlebags for him to put his leather coat into and replace it with a nice suit jacket, strapping his helmet to the bike or carrying it in with him.

Hmm. Do we have a place for helmets in our Lord's temples?  I suppose a coat rack would do.

Link to comment
On 7/6/2019 at 6:46 AM, BlueDreams said:

This story was a bit of a big deal in some of  the black social groups. Before it could be rectified it caused a number of people to actually call the temple (from what i read) and several were very frustrated with the temple president’s initial decision. But it came with a very positive ending and represents to me a part of the cultural church that could be removed. In our stake there’s still this (dumb) expectation that people with certain male leadership callings must be shaved and hair cut short. 

But beyond hair I think it points to something that i see as a major thrust in President Nelson’s goals and actions: to help better separate church culture from gospel doctrine. I see this in several changes to temple policies to allow more people to serve as temple workers who are otherwise worthy to do so. I also see it in general church initiatives, such as the hymn book, to better represent what people in varying areas view as spiritual. 

Here I see this sometimes when people often extrapolate what happens in Utah or their own individual ward to represent the whole of the church. It can be a nice reminder that our assumptions based on a geographic location may sincerely not hold in another area or even a ward over. 

 

Also liked the quote at the end: The Lord asked us to be one, not to be the same

 

 

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/payson-temple-worker-s-hairstyle-opens-bigger-discussion-on-diversity/article_6c57851c-55f5-5d7f-b3ee-d83decf59063.html?fbclid=IwAR05G_ja6GudYFOatfqvmNVS260xPwhXsGUfrTl49HtsdPXDb0IXF1S7c6M

 

Anyways thought i’d share and see what others here thought of the article. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

That's too easy.  He's clean shaven and in good physical condition.  What we need next is a big fat man with a big scraggly beard and a skin color other than white. Then once we can get past our hangups on people who look like that it really wouldn't matter what someone looked like as long as they took a bath and had some nice clean and dressy clothes on.

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

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