Masks Required in Temples

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Being at the veil is probably one of the lesser problematic places before masks were required, since there is a fabric between the two people who are speaking.  But I get what you are saying.

More like seven or 8 per session, per veil,  not exactly 2 people. And please people don't wear cologne, and brush your teeth.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Obviously we grew up in different churches.

As a missionary conducting baptismal interviews I asked those questions. I have sat through numerous tithing settlements where those question were discussed, and the WOW is part of every temple interview.

I suspect that the problem is you and I use words so differently that communication is not possible.

I’ve NEVER been asked at tithing settlement about my personal finances except to state whether I paid a full tithe. 
 

The Word of Wisdom as defined for qualifying for temple attendance is quite cut and dried. Nothing in there about “eating habits.” 
 

And I’ve never had intimate questions put to me about my marital relations. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve NEVER been asked at tithing settlement about my personal finances except to state whether I paid a full tithe. 
 

The Word of Wisdom as defined for qualifying for temple attendance is quite cut and dried. Nothing in there about “eating habits.” 
 

And I’ve never had intimate questions put to me about my marital relations. 

iirc - there was a brief time in the late 70's early 80's where the questions were very intrusive for married individuals, asking specifically about oral. But more generally, many people would consider questions about p0rn and mstrbation and specifics about petting (above or below the clothing) etc to be fairly intrusive.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

iirc - there was a brief time in the late 70's early 80's where the questions were very intrusive for married individuals, asking specifically about oral. But more generally, many people would consider questions about p0rn and mstrbation and specifics about petting (above or below the clothing) etc to be fairly intrusive.

Assuming that’s true (I wasn’t married then, so I wouldn’t know) a “brief time” some 40 years ago doesn’t strike me as a fair characterization of what transpires in a typical interview. 

And questions put to me have never been as intrusive as you describe. If I were seeking to repent of something, I suppose it might be different, but that’s far from routine. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[mtomm]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems to me that in a college town like Rexburg they’d be able to call enough younger folks from among the campus community who don’t share such attitudes to make up any shortage. But I have no way of knowing. 

They do use the university students, however, since the school session is just starting it will take some time get the them called and trained. 
 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming that’s true (I wasn’t married then, so I wouldn’t know) a “brief time” some 40 years ago doesn’t strike me as a fair characterization of what transpires in a typical interview. 
 

And what about other questions about sxual habits, which I believe are primarily asked of the youth and young adults? Are those intrusive?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, mtomm said:

They do use the university students, however, since the school session is just starting it will take some time get the them called and trained. 
 

Aren’t faculty and staff there year round, though?

How big a temple is Rexburg? How many ordinance rooms? 
 

And is the older population of faithful temple-goers in the district so rebellious that they would boycott the temple over a First Presidency directive to the point that they can’t keep it fully operational? I would find that astounding. 
 

Maybe in a developing area of the Church, but Rexburg?

Edited September 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And what about other questions about sxual habits, which I believe are primarily asked of the youth and young adults? Are those intrusive?

I answered that question in an addition to my post, but I’ll repeat it here:

“And questions put to me have never been as intrusive as you describe. If I were seeking to repent of something, I suppose it might be different, but that’s far from routine.”

Edited September 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Personally, I feel that if masks are important enough to be required at the temple, they should also be required at church buildings. It seems to me that there is a higher risk at church when considering the singing, the large numbers of interactions, the larger groups etc. I suspect that for consistency the church will make masks a requirement at the buildings as well. Then again, maybe this whole Covid thing will just blow over   At least until the next mutation.

I'm vaccinated. I wear masks. I social distance. These days I find myself quite desensitized to the sad stories of covid sicknesses and death, virtually of which are amongst the unvaccinated, non-mask wearing population. People are making their choices and they'll face the consequences. But I struggle when my life is affected negatively because of the choices of others. I don't like being desensitized to tragedy yet it hardly seems like a tragedy when it's preventable.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Raingirl said:

But by allowing people not to mask, you are risking the safety of other people.  

One of the nice things about the whole mask situation is that it is completely observable by other people.

Ironically, this is one of the bad things about it as well. I mean, nobody walks into church and is able to just look around and see who is struggling with this, that, or the other. But everyone can plainly see who is / is not wearing a mask.

However, it is because of this transparency that people are able to decide for whether or not they are comfortable - and, thereby, assume the risk of staying for the meeting - themselves.

In our ward, we are currently broadcasting our sacrament meeting for anyone who isn't able to attend or who doesn't feel comfortable attending in person just yet, so you don't have to be physically present if you don't want to. At least for the time being.

 

Quote

It’s apparently better to not risk offending one someone, than than do what is necessary to protect the whole ward. 

The problem, unfortunately, is that some people who are offended end up leaving the church, and that's something which merits serious consideration.

So I think what you are looking for in general is the best possible outcome, which isn't necessarily going to be 100% compliance, at least not at first.

That doesn't mean you never do or say anything, and I'm certainly not saying you don't even try, but I do believe you have to decide how best to approach the situation and be sensitive to the feelings of those involved.

The scriptures say that "charity suffereth long," and that has been the approach we have taken. We have encouraged people to follow the wise counsel of our prophet, and as a bishopric we have been leading by example. But we will not go so far as to turn people away at the door. Instead, we will treat everyone with compassion, try to withhold judgment, and continue to gently persuade from a position of love.

It has been hard - much harder than I would have expected - but it has been working.

In my conservative Texas ward, I would say that 85-90% of our members come wearing a mask week in and week out.

After our 5th Sunday lesson last month, put on by the bishopric, focusing on charity and establishing Zion, I learned that one of the ardent anti-mask families in our ward had experienced a change of heart and would begin their first round of vaccination that week and begin wearing masks on Sundays (which they have been doing ever since).

From what I hear from others (both on this board and elsewhere), along with my own personal observations from other wards in our stake, I would say that our ward's behavior with respect to voluntary masking is...pretty darn good.

Could it be better? Sure. And we are continuing to work on it. But we will continue to proceed in a loving, thoughtful manner - even if that means the results come a bit more slowly than we would prefer.

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, bOObOO said:

We are being "asked" to wear a mask, huh.  I hope nobody gives me a dirty look when seeing me without one while I reply with a "No, thank you"

Oooh, oooh, tell me when you come to the London temple. I want to be there to give you a dirty look!!  

[Amulek]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I feel that if masks are important enough to be required at the temple, they should also be required at church buildings.

Are masks actually required at the temple though? I keep hearing people say this about the most recent communication, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the announcement actually said.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to encourage people to not wear masks, but I don't think it's accurate to say that masks are being required in temples but optional in meeting houses.

If members aren't being turned away at the temple desk for not wearing a mask then masks are being "required" in exactly the same way they are required in other church buildings.

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Are masks actually required at the temple though? I keep hearing people say this about the most recent communication, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the announcement actually said.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to encourage people to not wear masks, but I don't think it's accurate to say that masks are being required in temples but optional in meeting houses.

If members aren't being turned away at the temple desk for not wearing a mask then masks are being "required" in exactly the same way they are required in other church building.

 

In Church parlance, “asked” often means “required.”

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In Church parlance, “asked” often means “required.”

So, "asked" means "required" but "urged" means "optional?"

 

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

So, "asked" means "required" but "urged" means "optional?"

 

It usually helps more to look at people's faces than to just hear the words coming out of their mouths. 

If someone asks you to wear a mask and still smiles when you don't, then it usually okay to not wear a mask.  If they give you a dirty look, instead, though, then you should either run away or just go ahead and put a mask on.  Or just ignore them, or whatever.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

So, "asked" means "required" but "urged" means "optional?"

 

Wasn’t the prior wording something along the lines of “in gatherings where social distancing is not possible”? It seems to me this time the caveat is not present, and that in my view if anything makes it more imperative. 
 

I would not be surprised to be turned away this time if I insisted on entering without a mask. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Are masks actually required at the temple though?

I haven't had any communications though LCR about stage 3 requirements changing, so as far as I'm concerned people should be masking up regardless of what temple workers let them get away with 

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

One of the nice things about the whole mask situation is that it is completely observable by other people.

Ironically, this is one of the bad things about it as well. I mean, nobody walks into church and is able to just look around and see who is struggling with this, that, or the other. But everyone can plainly see who is / is not wearing a mask.

However, it is because of this transparency that people are able to decide for whether or not they are comfortable - and, thereby, assume the risk of staying for the meeting - themselves.

In our ward, we are currently broadcasting our sacrament meeting for anyone who isn't able to attend or who doesn't feel comfortable attending in person just yet, so you don't have to be physically present if you don't want to. At least for the time being.

 

The problem, unfortunately, is that some people who are offended end up leaving the church, and that's something which merits serious consideration.

So I think what you are looking for in general is the best possible outcome, which isn't necessarily going to be 100% compliance, at least not at first.

That doesn't mean you never do or say anything, and I'm certainly not saying you don't even try, but I do believe you have to decide how best to approach the situation and be sensitive to the feelings of those involved.

The scriptures say that "charity suffereth long," and that has been the approach we have taken. We have encouraged people to follow the wise counsel of our prophet, and as a bishopric we have been leading by example. But we will not go so far as to turn people away at the door. Instead, we will treat everyone with compassion, try to withhold judgment, and continue to gently persuade from a position of love.

It has been hard - much harder than I would have expected - but it has been working.

In my conservative Texas ward, I would say that 85-90% of our members come wearing a mask week in and week out.

After our 5th Sunday lesson last month, put on by the bishopric, focusing on charity and establishing Zion, I learned that one of the ardent anti-mask families in our ward had experienced a change of heart and would begin their first round of vaccination that week and begin wearing masks on Sundays (which they have been doing ever since).

From what I hear from others (both on this board and elsewhere), along with my own personal observations from other wards in our stake, I would say that our ward's behavior with respect to voluntary masking is...pretty darn good.

Could it be better? Sure. And we are continuing to work on it. But we will continue to proceed in a loving, thoughtful manner - even if that means the results come a bit more slowly than we would prefer.

But what about the members who might leave the church because of the leaders and others not caring about the health of its members by allowing risky practices such as non-masking to go on during a worldwide pandemic?  Are these members less important than anti-maskers? Is retaining members who ignore the direction of church leaders more important than retaining members who don’t? Are their feelings and membership more important than the health and lives of others they may be endangering?

The church may lose members over this, but it may not be the members you think. A lot of members have been forgotten and ignored by the church in the last year and a half, but it’s not the anti-makers and anti-vaxxers. 

[bOObOO]

I think what we need are a better grade of masks.  Something that helps us look more like regular people than bandits hiding their faces.  And maybe we should call them something other than a mask, like maybe a face shield.

https://www.amazon.com/Transparent_Face_Mask-Reusable-Bandanas-Breathable-Expression/dp/B08MDXQVXJ/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2LqQ85WW8wIV2B-tBh1QnwD3EAAYASAAEgLlKfD_BwE&hvadid=477637631930&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=1024543&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=12991785596211247009&hvtargid=kwd-951301040331&hydadcr=23346_9902447&keywords=clear+mask+transparent+face+mask&qid=1632437062&sr=8-7

.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And is the older population of faithful temple-goers in the district so rebellious that they would boycott the temple over a First Presidency directive to the point that they can’t keep it fully operational? I would find that astounding. 

Maybe in a developing area of the Church, but Rexburg?

Having lived in a number of 'developing areas of the Church', I think you may have your assessment exactly backwards. The faithfulness and obedience of the Saints outside of cultural 'strongholds' is something I have found to be truly astounding.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Having lived in a number of 'developing areas of the Church', I think you may have your assessment exactly backwards. The faithfulness and obedience of the Saints outside of cultural 'strongholds' is something I have found to be truly astounding.

Idaho and Utah seem to be the most anti vaxxers and masks. But just my opinion. 

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

One of the nice things about the whole mask situation is that it is completely observable by other people.

Ironically, this is one of the bad things about it as well. I mean, nobody walks into church and is able to just look around and see who is struggling with this, that, or the other. But everyone can plainly see who is / is not wearing a mask.

However, it is because of this transparency that people are able to decide for whether or not they are comfortable - and, thereby, assume the risk of staying for the meeting - themselves.

In our ward, we are currently broadcasting our sacrament meeting for anyone who isn't able to attend or who doesn't feel comfortable attending in person just yet, so you don't have to be physically present if you don't want to. At least for the time being.

 

The problem, unfortunately, is that some people who are offended end up leaving the church, and that's something which merits serious consideration.

So I think what you are looking for in general is the best possible outcome, which isn't necessarily going to be 100% compliance, at least not at first.

That doesn't mean you never do or say anything, and I'm certainly not saying you don't even try, but I do believe you have to decide how best to approach the situation and be sensitive to the feelings of those involved.

The scriptures say that "charity suffereth long," and that has been the approach we have taken. We have encouraged people to follow the wise counsel of our prophet, and as a bishopric we have been leading by example. But we will not go so far as to turn people away at the door. Instead, we will treat everyone with compassion, try to withhold judgment, and continue to gently persuade from a position of love.

It has been hard - much harder than I would have expected - but it has been working.

In my conservative Texas ward, I would say that 85-90% of our members come wearing a mask week in and week out.

After our 5th Sunday lesson last month, put on by the bishopric, focusing on charity and establishing Zion, I learned that one of the ardent anti-mask families in our ward had experienced a change of heart and would begin their first round of vaccination that week and begin wearing masks on Sundays (which they have been doing ever since).

From what I hear from others (both on this board and elsewhere), along with my own personal observations from other wards in our stake, I would say that our ward's behavior with respect to voluntary masking is...pretty darn good.

Could it be better? Sure. And we are continuing to work on it. But we will continue to proceed in a loving, thoughtful manner - even if that means the results come a bit more slowly than we would prefer.

My husband and I aren’t leaving the church but we don’t feel comfortable going in-person right now because masks are not required. It seems like we worry more about offending anti-maskers than offending pro-maskers. 

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is there a logic I'm missing about requiring masks at the temple but not at the church buildings?

 

This is me guessing from my own perspective from the more cautious end of things (vaxx’d, mask in public, social distancing whenever possible, don’t attend church beyond 2nd hour every two weeks for my YW calling). With church - though it’s limited - there is still access to services if you don’t feel comfortable being around unmasked individuals for long periods of time. With the temple there isn’t.

I used to attend the temple regularly. Pre-baby it was weekly as a temple worker and post I was just starting to think of ways to attend more often (goal was monthly) but we still had gone a few times. since covid i haven’t gone at all. last week was the first time we tried and we decided to leave because a good amount of patrons were unmasked. Most workers were masked proper, though two in the sealing office might as well not have been. I wasn’t offended, but neither of us felt comfortable with the idea of staying. we left and chatted outside the temple instead. I was definitely a little dejected though at first. I’m hopeful that with the change, maybe we can go again and try our luck. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bOObOO said:

I think what we need are a better grade of masks.  Something that helps us look more like regular people than bandits hiding their faces.  And maybe we should call them something other than a mask, like maybe a face shield.

The nice thing about these is that you can tell if the wearer has a runny nose or has coughed or sneezed into the mask.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, bOObOO said:

It usually helps more to look at people's faces than to just hear the words coming out of their mouths. 

If someone asks you to wear a mask and still smiles when you don't, then it usually okay to not wear a mask.  If they give you a dirty look, instead, though, then you should either run away or just go ahead and put a mask on.  Or just ignore them, or whatever.

Man oh man...no words.