Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Masks Required in Temples


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

An item with deep spiritual significance vs a worldly protection?
Not the same issue.
But honestly, it doesn't really matter.  The whole temple ceremony has been "adjusted" till there's nothing really left anyway.

if that's true why do you care about masks if it's all hocus pocus?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

The high below 12 population in Utah (highest rate in the US) skews vaccination rate lower if using the full population. Best to use a rate that show either by age or if you want a ‘global’ one to show compliance, one that is for everyone 12 and older, all those of age to get the vaccine. 

Thank you, I understand the differences in what-measures-what -- I was questioning the 70% claim.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if that's true why do you care about masks if it's all hocus pocus?

I didn't say I cared.  I said I found it inappropriate and that it didn't sit right.
It's not like I'm getting all upset about it.  I care far more about the recent changes made to the ordinance itself.  The endowment is hardly "hocus pocus".  At least when it's complete as Joseph restored it.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
Just now, JustAnAustralian said:

Facemasks were already standard as part of stage 3 reopening

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/phase-3-temple-reopening

And as far as I can tell, no temples are past stage 3

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/temple-reopening-list.pdf

For me and my wife going to the temple again ranks right up there in importance with attending ward worship services in our ward chapel.  We'd like to go back ASAP but while also not wanting to take any unnecessary risks to our health.

We have had all of our shots so we're not terribly worried but still we both like to be cautious.  We don't go out of our home nearly as often as we did before March of 2020.  The temple is now just another place we won't go to until things get a lot better.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Facemasks were already required as part of stage 3 reopening

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/phase-3-temple-reopening

And as far as I can tell, no temples are past stage 3

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/temple-reopening-list.pdf

Then why this big press release today?

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Facemasks were already required as part of stage 3 reopening

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/phase-3-temple-reopening

And as far as I can tell, no temples are past stage 3

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/temple-reopening-list.pdf

 

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then why this big press release today?

That does tend to illustrate how laissez faire it was enforced in many temples (in Utah and Arizona, anyway). On paper, this is not news, since it represents reiteration of what was previously said in the August 12 letter, but temple presidents appear to now be being told in no uncertain terms. What will fascinate me is if this has no practical effect, in practice. I won't know for almost another month, when we have our next appointment. 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

That does tend to illustrate how laissez faire it was enforced in many temples (in Utah and Arizona, anyway). On paper, this is not a big deal, but temple presidents appear to be being told in no uncertain terms. What will fascinate me is if this has no practical effect, in practice. I won't know for almost another month, when we have our next appointment. 

 

26 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Facemasks were already required as part of stage 3 reopening

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/phase-3-temple-reopening

And as far as I can tell, no temples are past stage 3

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/temple-reopening-list.pdf

 

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Then why this big press release today?

Our temple (Bountiful) stopped requiring masks when the CDC said that it wasn't necessary, even though it continued to say online that they were required.  I'm assuming that's why we have gotten this new announcement. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our temple (Bountiful) stopped requiring masks when the CDC said that it wasn't necessary, even though it continued to say online that they were required.  I'm assuming that's why we have gotten this new announcement. 

It's been annoying that the Church has said repeatedly that "local laws and regulations" will drive the phases and the restrictions, but then the Church's restrictions are usually much, much more restrictive than the local laws and regulations. 

Temples could have been "phase 4" open in Arizona long ago. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep, which is why, I suspect, the First Presidency have already asked people to wear face coverings to church meetings.

I know about the previous statement which would have covered temple attendance also. Now a special announcement just for temples?  So again, why mention just temple attendance here and not reemphasiz all meetings?

I applaud the announcement today but I wish they would be this direct about all meetings.

"Wear a mask or stay home".

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I know about the previous statement which would have covered temple attendance also. Now a special announcement just for temples?  So again, why mention just temple attendance here and not reemphasiz all meetings?

Actually, the 12 August statement only mentions 'public meetings':

Quote

To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible.

As someone earlier pointed out, use of face masks is part of Phase 3 temple openings. It appears that people either forgot that or openly rebelled against it; hence, today's 'reminder'.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

https://apnews.com/article/health-religion-coronavirus-pandemic-utah-347e16ac75a6e1e9d5c7a4369bfbb921

  • “As cases of COVID-19 increase in many areas, we want to do everything possible to allow temples to remain open,” the church said in a statement. “Therefore, effective immediately, all temple patrons and workers are asked to wear face masks at all times while in the temple.”

This is not going to go well with the anti-maskers among the membership.  In Utah County this is a high percent.

 

It's been technically like that here in CALIFORNIA forever, even in church.

Seriously what's there to argue about in wearing a Kleenex on string?

If you have a constitutional right to kill yourself, yes by all means do it but don't spend my money on your treatment.  

🤨

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, it's always fascinating when the Saints defy their prophets, I find.

That's been the case here, too. It seems quite silly for Church leaders to care more about the health and wellbeing of members than secular governments do.

Not in America:

Deaths in the US.png

And then there is Mu

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If you have a constitutional right to kill yourself, yes by all means do it but don't spend my money on your treatment.  

From June through August 2021, preventable COVID-19 hospitalizations among unvaccinated adults in America cost over US$5 billion.

For the insured, the impacts will reach to everyone in their health fund. For the uninsured, the impacts will reach everyone. Good luck! I'm not sure this is what the doctor would have ordered for your economy ...

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's been technically like that here in CALIFORNIA forever, even in church.

Seriously what's there to argue about in wearing a Kleenex on string?

If you have a constitutional right to kill yourself, yes by all means do it but don't spend my money on your treatment.  

🤨

In my California ward about 70% of the members don't wear masks and the Bishop is not saying anything about it.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, bOObOO said:

I don't consider myself an anti-masker.  I wear masks when I have a NEED or VERY STRONG DESIRE to go to some place and that place posts a sign that says masks are required to go into that place.

I suppose I will just not go to a temple while a mask is required to enter the building.  I already have all of my endowments and I have no NEED to go to a temple.  And while the mask requirement is in place I have no VERY STRONG DESIRE to go either.

The whole last paragraph is indicative of an uncaring attitude towards others. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

The whole last paragraph is indicative of an uncaring attitude towards others. 

It is, isn't it.  So I think I did a good job if the words I used gave anyone who read them an idea something like this: 

Gasp!  Would any card carrying member literally not do temple work for others simply because of a little inconvenience required in wearing a mask in a temple?!?  I hope I would never be so uncaring toward others!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From June through August 2021, preventable COVID-19 hospitalizations among unvaccinated adults in America cost over US$5 billion.

For the insured, the impacts will reach to everyone in their health fund. For the uninsured, the impacts will reach everyone. Good luck! I'm not sure this is what the doctor would have ordered for your economy ...

Don't get me started! Grrrrr. 

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

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