Masks Required in Temples

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

And I don’t mean to dispute that at all. Sorry if my remark upset you. 
 

My point is that I’ve spent my life among and around seasoned, faithful, obedient Church members, the type who, in retirement, are apt to spend much of their time in the temple, the kind of people my mom used to call “the salt of the earth.” Anomalies aside, I just don’t see such people en masse shutting down a temple by boycotting it because they were annoyed about something the First Presidency said in a letter. 
 

Again, I would be astounded if such a thing were to happen in a place like Rexburg. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry if my remark upset you.  

Thanks, mate, but not upset at all. That's not my thing. 

Quote

I just don’t see such people en masse shutting down a temple by boycotting it because they were annoyed about something the First Presidency said in a letter. 

I certainly hope you're right! I haven't set foot in America in over a decade, so my impressions are based on what I read. The last First Presidency letter certainly generated some interesting responses on the Church's Facebook post from people claiming to be 'salt of the earth' types (and all of them Americans from my quick perusal of their profiles):

• 'My faith is strong and I am a faithful member, BUT I am not okay with this post. There is tons of information and experts that do NOT agree with this'.
• 'My heart is breaking over this. I have free agency and I choose to NOT get this vaccine!!!!'
• 'I truly resent this!!!! I can not even express how upset I am about this. Me and my family will serve the Lord'.
• 'What if our government are tyrants who are after our liberty? This is truly discouraging. I will continue to strive to hear HIM'.
• 'LEAD IN LOVE. Not control! DO BETTER!'
• 'This makes me feel so sick'.
• ' I’m so confused and conflicted. So I get to choose between what my heart tells me and what the prophet I trust tells me?'
• 'Following the wise and thoughtful counsel of prophets, seers, and revelators would be nice if they weren't deferring to medical experts and government officials for their guidance'.
• 'It is never okay for the church to give blanket medical advice'.

I note that, with this most recent statement, the decision was made to have no public comments ...

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate, but not upset at all. That's not my thing. 

I certainly hope you're right! I haven't set foot in America in over a decade, so my impressions are based on what I read. The last First Presidency letter certainly generated some interesting responses on the Church's Facebook post from people claiming to be 'salt of the earth' types (and all of them Americans from my quick perusal of their profiles):

• 'My faith is strong and I am a faithful member, BUT I am not okay with this post. There is tons of information and experts that do NOT agree with this'.
• 'My heart is breaking over this. I have free agency and I choose to NOT get this vaccine!!!!'
• 'I truly resent this!!!! I can not even express how upset I am about this. Me and my family will serve the Lord'.
• 'What if our government are tyrants who are after our liberty? This is truly discouraging. I will continue to strive to hear HIM'.
• 'LEAD IN LOVE. Not control! DO BETTER!'
• 'This makes me feel so sick'.
• ' I’m so confused and conflicted. So I get to choose between what my heart tells me and what the prophet I trust tells me?'
• 'Following the wise and thoughtful counsel of prophets, seers, and revelators would be nice if they weren't deferring to medical experts and government officials for their guidance'.
• 'It is never okay for the church to give blanket medical advice'.

I note that, with this most recent statement, the decision was made to have no public comments ...

 

I can only go by my own experience. The Church members I live among and worship with (and serve with in the temple) would not be disposed to make such posts. And you likely wouldn’t hear from them, because they tend to live quiet lives. 
 

But if I hear of a temple having its operation curtailed because patrons or workers refused to attend it with the mask mandate in place, I will readily come back and acknowledge my assessment was wrong. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can only go by my own experience. The Church members I live among and worship with (and serve with in the temple) would not be disposed to make such posts. And you likely wouldn’t hear from them, because they tend to live quiet lives. 

Same! But then a few have surprised me as well ...

Quote

But if I hear of a temple having its operation curtailed because patrons or workers refused to attend it with the mask mandate in place, I will readily come back and acknowledge my assessment was wrong. 

Yeah, like you, I sincerely hope that mtomm's neighbours -- and all those commenters on Facebook! -- are exceptional.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[InCognitus]

10 hours ago, mtomm said:

My neighbors who work in the temple quit because they were required to wear masks. I'm more than a little shocked. 

This just seems so, so incredibly odd to me.  It's such a little thing.

• Pay 10% of income to the church?   Sure!
• Donate additional funds for fast offering?  No problem!
• Donate hundreds of hours of service in church callings?  No sweat!
• Wear a medical face mask while in the temple?   NO WAY!  - I'M OUT OF HERE.  YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!

I don't get it.  The priorities seem way out of line.  And I'm not trying to judge your neighbors, it's the general attitude that astounds me, and I've seen the same attitude elsewhere.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This just seems so, so incredibly odd to me.  It's such a little thing.

• Pay 10% of income to the church?   Sure!
• Donate additional funds for fast offering?  No problem!
• Donate hundreds of hours of service in church callings?  No sweat!
• Wear a medical face mask while in the temple?   NO WAY!  - I'M OUT OF HERE.  YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!

I don't get it.  The priorities seem way out of line.  And I'm not trying to judge your neighbors, it's the general attitude that astounds me, and I've seen the same attitude elsewhere.

I see that attitude in the pushback President Nelson gets after exhorting us not to supplant the name of Christ with some other name in the name of His Church and reminding us of His scriptural directive pertaining thereto. 

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

The original correspondence referenced "public meetings" broadly, so having some mitigating language makes sense because there are meetings which can be held while accommodating social distancing. For example, you could have a BYD in the gym and have all the youth spread out, thus relieving them of the obligation to wear masks.

However, that same caveat is understandably absent in the subsequent message - not to infer greater importance, but simply - because, for all practical purposes, there aren't really any temple activities to participate in which accommodate social distancing. I mean, it's kind of hard to perform baptisms / conformations for someone standing six feet away from you.

Regardless of how one parses the language, however, I think we can certainly agree that the church has been both clear and consistent in communicating the desired behavior, and that's probably what matters. most.

 

Quote

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

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if you were asked to wear a mask (in fact, I would expect it), but I would be surprised if you were denied entrance for not wearing one.

 

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

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 

Oh, I agree that this is what people ought to be doing.

But there is an axiom in law that goes something along the lines of 'that which is not forbidden is allowed.'

And I think that's what we have here. Without some kind of enforcement mechanism there isn't really a requirement - that's all I'm saying.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

39 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Without some kind of enforcement mechanism there isn't really a requirement - that's all I'm saying.

Our temple was open briefly earlier this year, and I was able to attend. In the email confirming my booking, I was told that masks were mandatory, that I would need to bring my own, and that the temple would supply me with one in case I forgot. When I arrived at the recommend desk, there was a supply of surgical masks on the desk, along with hand sanitiser and a QR code for contact tracing. We also had our temperatures taken. As we were greeted, we were reminded that our masks were to be left in place until we exited the temple. I guess at that point I could have ripped my mask off and shoved my way past the brother working at the recommend desk, but I suspect doing so may have triggered a call to temple security ...

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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?  

How do you propose leaders go about disallowing the practice?

I suppose we could require everyone to wear masks while on church property and forcibly remove all who fail to comply.

We could set up guard stations at every door and only allow entry for mask wearers. Of course, we would then have to police all of the doors at all times to ensure no tailgating or other unauthorized access occurs. And we would have to assign enforcers to monitor everyone in the building throughout the entire two hour block - that way we can usher anyone out of the building who thought they could get away with only wearing their mask at the checkpoint(s).

And what about insufficient masking? We will need to establish minimum mask requirements to prevent people from wearing gators, single weave cloth masks, previously used disposable masks, etc. Maybe we could delegate that assignment to the RS - it's not like they have been busy during the pandemic (#ExtremeSarcasm).

Yes, if we really wanted, I'm certain we could achieve 100% compliance. And then, after the pandemic ends, myself and the 18 or so remaining members in the ward can spend the next 5 years trying to reactivate all of the people we drove away previously.

 

Quote

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?

I've been in and around leadership quite a bit over the years, and if there's one consistent principle I have seen repeated (over and over and over again), it's that Bishops, RS Presidents, etc. end up spending a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with people who are on the bubble (mentally, spiritually, temporally, whatever).

It isn't that those members are more important than the ones who seemingly have got it all together, but as Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick."

What you are seeing here is, I believe, just another variant on that theme.

 

Quote

Are their [i.e., the anti-masker's] feelings and membership more important than the health and lives of others they may be endangering?

I wish it were as black and white as that. But it isn't.

Which is why I have chosen to focus my efforts on maximizing the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

 

Quote

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. 

I get that these frustrations are real. I mentioned earlier that our ward has upwards of 90% compliance on voluntary masking. Well, guess what I omitted: that despite all of our efforts (and, if I may brag a bit - our fairly objective success) our bishop has still gotten angry notes from members who are frustrated that we have not done enough.

If any of those people were to leave the church, I would be heartbroken over their decision. And I would hope that they wouldn't actually consider leaving without, at a minimum, talking to their bishop about what they have been experiencing.

Unless, of course, they happen to be gigantic University of Utah fans - in which case, it was nice knowing ya'.

 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

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. 

In a great many of the leadership discussions I have participated in over the last year or so, I can say that the people I see who are most concerned about offending the anti-maskers are, in fact, those in the pro-mask camp themselves.

 

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Our temple was open briefly earlier this year, and I was able to attend. In the email confirming my booking, I was told that masks were mandatory, that I would need to bring my own, and that the temple would supply me with one in case I forgot. When I arrived at the recommend desk, there was a supply of surgical masks on the desk, along with hand sanitiser and a QR code for contact tracing. We also had our temperatures taken. As we were greeted, we were reminded that our masks were to be left in place until we exited the temple. I guess at that point I could have ripped my mask off and shoved my way past the brother working at the recommend desk, but I suspect doing so may have triggered a call to temple security ...

That sounds like an enforcement mechanism to me. I have yet to see guidelines from our local temple, which should be opening up next month, but I have a very strong suspicion they will not be implementing that same sort of procedure (which, I'm guessing, may have been influenced by local regulations).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

… for all practical purposes, there aren't really any temple activities to participate in which accommodate social distancing.

Actually, there are some elements of temple worship that can accommodate some degree of social distancing, especially with modifications that were implemented under Phase 2. Most of the endowment session, for example, could be socially distanced, as could marriage and sealing ceremonies and gathering in the chapel and the celestial room. In our temple, the initiatory procedure was modified so that only a single ordinance worker was administering all of the ordinances for one patron at a time. 
 

But I get what you’re saying. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Our temple was open briefly earlier this year, and I was able to attend. In the email confirming my booking, I was told that masks were mandatory, that I would need to bring my own, and that the temple would supply me with one in case I forgot. When I arrived at the recommend desk, there was a supply of surgical masks on the desk, along with hand sanitiser and a QR code for contact tracing. We also had our temperatures taken. As we were greeted, we were reminded that our masks were to be left in place until we exited the temple. I guess at that point I could have ripped my mask off and shoved my way past the brother working at the recommend desk, but I suspect doing so may have triggered a call to temple security ...

 

32 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That sounds like an enforcement mechanism to me. I have yet to see guidelines from our local temple, which should be opening up next month, but I have a very strong suspicion they will not be implementing that same sort of procedure (which, I'm guessing, may have been influenced by local regulations).

 

What Hamba describes sounds very much like what was happening at our temple before its closure at the end of August. Things became a bit more relaxed under Phase 3 until the First Presidency directive, after which all of us ordinance workers began uniformly wearing masks again. We weren’t quite so strict with masks on patrons, but as I’ve said, they took their cue from us, and when asked about it, we strongly encouraged it. As I’ve said, I never saw anyone utterly refuse to do it. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Following the wise and thoughtful counsel of prophets, seers, and revelators would be nice if they weren't deferring to medical experts and government officials for their guidance'.

So many things wrong with this, not the least of which is the current prophet is a medical expert. 

What is wrong with the prophet passing along wise counsel regardless of its source?

God forbid the leadership of the church should defer to medical experts.

 

(HT I know this quote is not your words.)

 

[bOObOO]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Also nice to see all of a person's face.  And it makes it easier for a person who knows how to read lips.  George Bush didn't explain how to do that when he asked people to read his lips. Imagine how much harder it would have been if he had had a mask on.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Also nice to see all of a person's face.  And it makes it easier for a person who knows how to read lips.  George Bush didn't explain how to do that when he asked people to read his lips. Imagine how much harder it would have been if he had had a mask on.

What are you even doing, man?

[bOObOO]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What are you even doing, man?

I'm sitting here in my chair while drinking a cup of Kaffree and eating a few fruit bars.  Also discussing masks that could be worn in temples while considering the options available.  My wife reads lips and I read faces in addition to deciphering words that come out of people's mouths when they speak or write, so we are going for and recommending transparent masks rather than masks that make people look like bandits. What are you doing?  How have you been?

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This just seems so, so incredibly odd to me.  It's such a little thing.

• Pay 10% of income to the church?   Sure!
• Donate additional funds for fast offering?  No problem!
• Donate hundreds of hours of service in church callings?  No sweat!
• Wear a medical face mask while in the temple?   NO WAY!  - I'M OUT OF HERE.  YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR!

I don't get it.  The priorities seem way out of line.  And I'm not trying to judge your neighbors, it's the general attitude that astounds me, and I've seen the same attitude elsewhere.

For them it's an issue of agency (not saying I agree, just understand).
The first 3 items are scripturally backed commandments.  The last is not.

I know more than a few people who are preparing to quit their jobs over vaccine mandates.  Must be nice to have the luxury of that decision.
But people refuse to be told what to do unless they believe it's directly from God, and sometimes not even then.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

I'm sitting here in my chair while drinking a cup of Kaffree and eating a few fruit bars.  Also discussing masks that could be worn in temples while considering the options available.  My wife reads lips and I read faces in addition to deciphering words that come out of people's mouths when they speak or write, so we are going for and recommending transparent masks rather than masks that make people look like bandits. What are you doing?  How have you been?

Gotta admit. That made me chuckle  

[Danzo]

21 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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. 

All of the people who come in to the church every sunday are ignoring the direction of church leaders and the gospel in one way or another.  Many people are ignoring the direction of church members that affect the safety of other people.

We really do not want to expel people from our church meetings for not following all of the commandments.  In fact we are commanded not to turn any away.

[Danzo]

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

We went to the temple last night, everyone wore a mask. Its kind of sad they don't in your neck of the woods.

I really don't like masks, I think they are unconfortable and not very effective, but I feel the same way about wearing a tie.  I wore both yesterday because I wanted to go to the temple, and I am not going to let my discomfort keep me from the blessings of the temple.

Putting a mask on is a very small price to pay. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We really do not want to expel people from our church meetings for not following all of the commandments.  In fact we are commanded not to turn any away.

Quote

Church meetinghouses remain private property subject to Church policies. Persons unwilling to follow these guidelines will be asked in a respectful way not to attend Church meetings and events.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Gotta admit. That made me chuckle  

This whole time I think bOO bOO is being a tease. Who knew?

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This whole time I think bOO bOO is being a tease. Who knew?

You think?  Or do you know now?  Not a tease I would say but I do have a sense of humor and I like to be playful while teaching and just sharing my ideas and beliefs with others.