Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are beards still actively "prohibited" when serving in the temple unless there is a medical condition?

For those called as ordinance workers, they are — at least in the temple where I serve. My guess is it’s to accommodate the feelings of patrons for whom beards on ordinance workers might be a distraction. 
 

On the evening I was called and set apart, I was asked to shave my beard. I had only had it a short time, because I hadn’t been retired for very long. And since I intend to serve for as long as my health holds out, I’ve resigned myself to being clean shaven the rest of my life. 
 

It’s just as well. I found that sometime within the past 30 years, my whiskers turned white, and I don’t like the look. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But first and foremost I'm a Christian and a restorationist

So regarding yourself as a “restorationist” is more important to you than being a member of the Church that Christ Himself set up and organized in latter days? 
 

That’s your choice and privilege, but it makes no sense to me. An essential and central part of the Restoration is the latter-day organization of the Church with its priesthood authority and keys, the only one on the earth with authority to administer salvific ordinances and covenants. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Despite Scott's incorrect claim that the Brethren were united throughout Pres. Monson's presidency that the Church position and the teaching of the Brethren has been to ask us not to use the term “Mormon Church.” 

CFR that my “claim” is incorrect. Cite if you can even one credible indication that during President Monson’s presidency even one man among the high leadership of the Church dissented from the official directive that “Mormon church” not be used as the name of the Church. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For those called as ordinance workers, they are — at least in the temple where I serve. My guess is it’s to accommodate the feelings of patrons for whom beards on ordinance workers might be a distraction. 
 

On the evening I was called and set apart, I was asked to shave my beard. I had only had it a short time, because I hadn’t been retired for very long. And since I intend to serve for as long as my health holds out, I’ve resigned myself to being clean shaven the rest of my life. 
 

It’s just as well. I found that sometime within the past 30 years, my whiskers turned white, and I don’t like the look. 

It's weird that all beards would be a distraction for anyone.  

I understand the principle of adapting things for the weakest of saints, and judging someone for a beard is definitely a weakness, but at some point it seems like the saints need to be required to get over some things.  Otherwise, they'll just remain weak forever.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's weird that all beards would be a distraction for anyone.  

I understand the principle of adapting things for the weakest of saints, and judging someone for a beard is definitely a weakness, but at some point it seems like the saints need to be required to get over some things.  Otherwise, they'll just remain weak forever.

I don’t see why it would be a problem for leadership to come out and say ‘beards are no longer a sign of a culture we want our people to be careful of, though we plan to keep young missionaries beardless along with their dress code in order to present a consistent, easily recognizable picture so please don’t judge having a beard as a negative.’  And maybe get an apostle to grow a beard…got to be at least one that would like to and who would look good.

It is time to put this to bed.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's weird that all beards would be a distraction for anyone.  

I understand the principle of adapting things for the weakest of saints, and judging someone for a beard is definitely a weakness, but at some point it seems like the saints need to be required to get over some things.  Otherwise, they'll just remain weak forever.

I look at it this way: I want to avoid being a stumbling block to the faith and devotion of other Latter-day Saints (there’s more than enough of that in the world already), and if I can do it by sacrificing a little thing like the liberty to grow facial hair, I’ll readily comply. It has been many years since I enrolled at BYU, and I’ve long ago gotten over the rebelliousness I sometimes felt when I resented the strictures of dress and grooming standards. 
 

It’s like refraining from whistling or humming as I walk the corridors of the temple. I could say that those who get distracted by or object to such a thing should just get over it. But why make an issue of it? To invoke an apt expression that alas has become cliché, it’s not a hill I choose to die on. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But why make an issue of it?

Because it may cause obstacles in other areas of church, including in the temple.  If they are distracted by temple workers with beards, why wouldn’t they be distracted by temple patrons with beards…and what exactly is the distraction?  Is the moment less spiritual because the member has a beard?  Are they judging the worker as less spiritual, less worthy and therefore they don’t want them as part of their temple work as somehow it won’t be effective?  If so, then this is hardly an attitude that should be supported by leadership, imo.  Or is it hopefully just thought wandering because they aren’t used to it?  If only the latter, then psychologically it makes sense to desensitize them quickly with significant exposure rather than prolonging their agony with only occasional beards in the temple due to patrons.

Plus if someone is distracted by beards in the temple, then they are likely distracted by beards elsewhere.  If leadership were to remove the restriction and stop ‘nurturing’ the distraction, in the short run distraction levels might increase, but in the long run, they would likely decrease overall sooner than if the temple workers continue to be forbidden to have beards.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because it may cause obstacles in other areas of church, like a bearded member being looked at as less spiritual and therefore isn’t respected as a fully committed Saint by some of those members who are distracted by beards in the temple.

I don’t think the temple should be made a battleground over perceptions about facial hair on males or annoyance caused by whistling and humming in public. It would amount to getting caught up in the thick of thin things (to use another cliché). 
 

Afterthought: It’s not as though temple patrons are required to observe grooming standard. But ordinance workers are in a separate category, and it’s not unusual for Church members to be asked to observe certain requirements in personal comportment in fulfillment of their callings. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think the temple should be made a battleground over perceptions about facial hair on males or annoyance caused by whistling and humming in public. It would amount to getting caught up in the thick of thin things (to use another cliché). 

Then the rule should be dropped because there is only a battleground because there is a set of people who not only are distracted, but feel they have the right to dictate to those serving them how they should appear if the reason for the beard ban is due to complaints.  Is that really a behaviour that should be nurtured?

Men are already allowed to wear beards in the temple, are they not, as patrons?  Can you see any reason why bearded patrons would be less distracting than bearded workers?

The humming analogy doesn’t work because there aren’t people walking the halls of the temple humming at this time.  You are making the case for allowing beards by using this analogy as consistent behaviour is less likely to be annoying and since patrons are allowed to wear beards, after the initial disturbance, allowing workers to do the same creates greater consistency and therefore less chance of disturbance or annoyance.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Afterthought: It’s not as though temple patrons are required to observe grooming standard. But ordinance workers are in a separate category, and it’s not unusual for Church members to be asked to observe certain requirements in personal comportment in fulfillment of their callings. 

But if the issue is disturbance, then having a consistent standard is more likely to remove the sense of disturbance than prolonging the agony by having a partial beard ban.

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I look at it this way: I want to avoid being a stumbling block to the faith and devotion of other Latter-day Saints (there’s more than enough of that in the world already), and if I can do it by sacrificing a little thing like the liberty to grow facial hair, I’ll readily comply. It has been many years since I enrolled at BYU, and I’ve long ago gotten over the rebelliousness I sometimes felt when I resented the strictures of dress and grooming standards. 

There is no doubt in my mind that when/if (more likely a matter of when) the policy changes and beards are allowed, you will defend the new policy and we will never hear about beards being a stumbling block and distraction again.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

But if the issue is disturbance, then having a consistent standard is more likely to remove the sense of disturbance than prolonging the agony by having a partial beard ban.

Humming or whistling in the corridor or foyer or dressing rooms or other places outside the areas where ordinances were being administered, or, say, the chapel, where quiet reverence is the norm while waiting to go to the ordinance room for an endowment session, would not be creating a disturbance. Not really. I think it’s more a matter of being a distraction to some bystanders who would find such a thing annoying. So the issue is not unlike that pertaining to facial hair on males ordinance workers.  

Edited March 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is no doubt in my mind that when/if (more likely a matter of when) the policy changes and beards are allowed, you will defend the new policy and we will never hear about beards being a stumbling block and distraction again.  

 

Well, maybe by that time (if it ever does occur) in the judgment of inspired leaders who have the authority to make the determination, it will have ceased to be a stumbling block. 
 

Meanwhile, I’m not in the least ashamed of being obedient to the direction of Church leaders whom I support and sustain and whom I regard as being called and inspired of God — as when I readily complied with the recently rescinded First Presidency directive that masks be worn in all areas of the temple and even helped to enforce that directive as part of my duties as an ordinance worker. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Humming or whistling in the corridor, outside the areas where ordinances were being administered, or, say, the chapel, where quiet reverence is the norm while waiting to go to the ordinance room for an endowment session, would not be creating a disturbance. Not really. I think it’s more a matter of being distraction to some bystanders who would find such a thing annoying. So the issue is not unlike that pertaining to facial hair on males. 

So you hear a lot of people humming in the corridors at the temple?

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you hear a lot of people humming in the corridors at the temple?

Not ordinarily (though I have observed it on a couple of occasions). And I don’t see beards on male ordinance workers. There seems to be a general recognition that such things aren’t appropriate. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

Men are already allowed to wear beards in the temple, are they not, as patrons?  Can you see any reason why bearded patrons would be less distracting than bearded workers?

I think it’s natural and reasonable to expect a different, if not a higher, standard of comportment among those called and set apart as ordinance workers. For one thing, they tend to be far more prominent and visible, unavoidable by the nature of their calling, than those who are in the temple as patrons. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I don’t see beards on male ordinance worker

But you see them on patrons, do you not?  So beards are somewhat commonly present in the temple already while humming is not.

That makes a massive difference in the analogy being useful for the point I am making.

Which is…If people find beards on temple workers distracting, they most likely will also be distracted by beards in patrons (and you appear to agree by pointing out temple workers are “unavoidable” implying bearded patrons won’t ge as distracting because they can be avoided easier).  Since beards on patrons are already present and they are unlikely to be going away, it makes better sense to me to make beards be seen as commonplace in the temple since they are halfway there already.  Continuing the worker beard ban only makes beards somewhat less common in the temple, it doesn’t remove the presence of beards completely.  It is like tearing off a bandaid slowly rather than all at once.  

 

Quote

such things aren’t appropriate. 

Why aren’t they appropriate though?  Because they are distracting?  So make them no distracting by allowing them and then they will be common enough no one will pay attention to them in a few years.

If they aren’t appropriate for another reason, why are they allowed on patrons?
 

Quote

different, if not a higher, standard 

And this right here is the issue to me, the perception that no beards are a higher standard of comportment, thus creating a division that too often translate into less respect of those not abiding by the standard seen as higher, supporting the view that bearded patrons are a different, lower class in the eyes of some members.

Quote

unavoidable by the nature of their calling

So you are suggesting patrons deal with those patrons who are bearded by avoiding them so they won’t be distracting?  Or perhaps the temple should make a rule to require bearded patrons to sit on the back row to avoid distracting others?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you are suggesting patrons deal with those patrons who are bearded by avoiding them so they won’t be distracting?  Or perhaps the temple should make a rule to require bearded patrons to sit on the back row to avoid distracting others?

Huh?
 

I think I was quite clear in expressing that people tend to have different expectations regarding ordinance workers than they do of other temple-goers. Hence, the standard. 

You seem to be getting rather spun up over this, Calm, and I’m not comfortable with heated argument over temple-related matters, so I’m bowing out of the conversation. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You seem to be getting rather spun up over this, Calm, a

Persistence doesn’t mean getting spun up.  I am not the least bit spun up about it.  I was amused you went to humming…something rarely seen in the temple to support no beards given beards are seen in the temple and was then curious as to what other rationalizations you would use.

I am not heated in the least, so it would seem you must be the one feeling heated if you are sensing heat.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Calm

[SwedishLDS]

https://www.ldsliving.com/beards-what-the-church-has-actually-said/s/89654

my understanding was that the beard temple matters are handled at a local level? l

Edited March 22, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it’s natural and reasonable to expect a different, if not a higher, standard of comportment among those called and set apart as ordinance workers. For one thing, they tend to be far more prominent and visible, unavoidable by the nature of their calling, than those who are in the temple as patrons. 

I wonder if Jesus feels unwelcome in His own home, if it's so quiet/no beards allowed for temple workers.  Maybe He wants it a little less rigid?

Edited March 22, 2022 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I look at it this way: I want to avoid being a stumbling block to the faith and devotion of other Latter-day Saints (there’s more than enough of that in the world already), and if I can do it by sacrificing a little thing like the liberty to grow facial hair, I’ll readily comply. It has been many years since I enrolled at BYU, and I’ve long ago gotten over the rebelliousness I sometimes felt when I resented the strictures of dress and grooming standards. 
 

It’s like refraining from whistling or humming as I walk the corridors of the temple. I could say that those who get distracted by or object to such a thing should just get over it. But why make an issue of it? To invoke an apt expression that alas has become cliché, it’s not a hill I choose to die on. 

I think it's good to try and avoid being a stumbling block. 

But, I also think that it makes things worse to coddle bad behavior in others, and in that sense, isn't doing them any favors.  It robs them of the opportunity to change and become better.  And it allows their actions to become stumbling blocks to others.

I think that a member who judges people's worthiness based on appearance can do a lot more damage as a stumbling block than someone with a beard can.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not ordinarily (though I have observed it on a couple of occasions). And I don’t see beards on male ordinance workers. There seems to be a general recognition that such things aren’t appropriate. 

Isn't it that they aren't allowed?  If someone refused to shave, would they still be able to be an ordinance worker?  If the answer is no, then not seeing beards on ordinance workers isn't a sign of recognition that beards are inappropriate.  It's a sign that only those willing to shave were allowed to do the calling.

And to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with being obedient to what is asked of us by our leaders.  Obedience isn't the subject of this discussion.  

Edited March 22, 2022 by bluebell

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Why aren’t they appropriate though?  Because they are distracting?

If I remember correctly, this rule was introduced in 2000 or 2001. Which means that before that, beards weren't distracting, apparently.

Also, if I remember correctly, the letter from the Temple Department never mentioned distractions or patrons. Instead, it was temple workers who had complained, repeatedly, that 'dress and grooming standards' varied from one temple to the next, so the Temple Department reluctantly introduced uniform rules to try to quell the petty complaints. That's it.

As we all know, when the people clamour for a king, the Lord sometimes complies. And in my opinion, when those who clamoured have passed on, it's well and truly time to ditch the king -- something always very difficult in practice once rules become entrenched and/or acquire an aura of inherent 'appropriateness'.

By the way, shortly before this change, I lived in the Chicago Temple district, and my favourite ordinance worker was an elderly brother, originally from Ghana, whose long white beard gave him a tremendous air of God-like dignity. We all loved him!

Edited March 22, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So regarding yourself as a “restorationist” is more important to you than being a member of the Church that Christ Himself set up and organized in latter days? 
 

That’s your choice and privilege, but it makes no sense to me. An essential and central part of the Restoration is the latter-day organization of the Church with its priesthood authority and keys, the only one on the earth with authority to administer salvific ordinances and covenants. 

Priesthood existed before the Church was founded.  Joseph held the Apostleship outside the Church.  The temporal legally established Church isn't what Christ restored.  That's a vehicle, the only one with priesthood to be sure, but not the kingdom.