Wow. That strikes me as a very uncharitable idea -- and an unprofitable one, as a significant percentage of the tiny handful of people I know who actually watch Big Love are LDS.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I appreciated the church's response (that muppet linked to above).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh, maybe I'll take a look. (Whats the rest of the show like, except for this controversy?)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The church is right on. There's no point trying to restrain HBO, it'd be counterproductive. For the few that this gives some kind of voyeuristic tingle? The information is available anyway. HBO is being disrespectful in an attempt to generate controversy, so the best response available is official eye rolling. Individual church members will probably cancel their subscriptions (though the piety that would demand such protest might not really permit consuming HBO in the first place[?]), and I doubt this will generate much new revenue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* If you really want to watch Temple ceremonies, there are cellphone videos available on YouTube. I think HBO's making a mistake, here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, never mind the text seems to be more than enough.
Edit to add: Out of curiosity, only found something with music out of the Twilight Zone on youtube, is there anything thats more realistic?
[ March 10, 2009, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I really like the church's response. It's definitely the way to handle this. And I agree with Tom that this is a mistake on HBO's part.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree about the Church's response. It's far classier than anything I could have come up with.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Although I agree, I keep wondering that if the ceremony itself was important to the story, should it be omitted?
I really don't know if this is actually the case or not.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
From Muppet's link:
quote:When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable. But once again it inflicted no perceptible or lasting damage to a church that is growing by at least a quarter of a million new members every year.
That's an example of a negative misrepresentation? I know they made some jokes about the history, but on the whole I thought that episode was accurate, balanced, and made some of the most positive points about modern Mormonism that I've ever seen from the mass media. Heck, I've seen several movies made by the Church as proselyting tools that don't make Mormons look as good as that episode of South Park.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I wondered how long it would take before this topic showed up on Hatrack. And scifibum, you're right: I can't exactly quit them, because I already don't get HBO.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I actually have thought that LDS got off way easier then just about anyone else on South Park. The Joseph Smith talking in a hat comment confused me, but other then that, they have been super nice. I thought the funniest scene (different episode) had to be when they showed heaven and revealed that most people weren't getting in. The line was something like "And the correct answer was Mormon."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
South Park doesn't have the reputation of being particularly tasteful. And misrepresentation is misrepresentation, whether it comes off as positive or negative. At the risk of sounding snobbish, South Park is hardly the stage the Church wants its history and beliefs presented on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know where the talking in the hat bit came from, right?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Tom- no. I have heard other references to it but I don't know where it started (and the other reference was actually Big Love).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't care particularly about negative representation. Every religion of consequence has to deal with some of that. Either it is true and deserved or untrue and will look stupid.
I do think that showing a secret ceremony is inappropriate.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Tiny handful of people Tom?
Niki and I watch the show, guess I thought we weren't the only ones .
Can't speak to this particular story. I guess I'll watch the scene when it airs and make a judgment then.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too agree with the Church's response on this. I hope HBO will reconsider this decision.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I have heard other references to it but I don't know where it started (and the other reference was actually Big Love).
It started when Joseph Smith placed the Urim and Thummim in a hat and covered his eyes to see the revelations for certain sections of the Book of Mormon translation.
Great church response to Big Love. Economically I think it will backfire for the producers. At any rate, I don't think it will help bring in new revenue. The church can be very mature and classy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I keep wondering that if the ceremony itself was important to the story, should it be omitted?
That a certain element must be included to tell a story is not necessarily sufficient justification, in my opinion. Not all stories are worth what it costs to tell them.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Then the question might be that was it a story worth telling at all.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This is just another example of why I don't find it worth paying for cable!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, never mind the text seems to be more than enough.
Edit to add: Out of curiosity, only found something with music out of the Twilight Zone on youtube, is there anything thats more realistic?
Most people who are in a position to tell you whether what you're seeing is accurate would decide against helping with this particular line of inquiry, so I don't think you'll have much luck with this kind of question.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Eh, I figured that would probably be the case.
But I also figured I might as well note in good faith that I *was* going to look for such materials and that if anyone had material ranging from actual portrayals to "debunking" material to note common mis-representations, that would be helpful to guide my assessment of what seems most probable.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Most people who are in a position to tell you whether what you're seeing is accurate would decide against helping with this particular line of inquiry, so I don't think you'll have much luck with this kind of question.
There are fairly academic sites that explores LDS issues. Most of them don't take a faith-driven approach to the subject matter, so I think it would be inappropriate to post links on Card's forum. However, they shouldn't be that hard to find.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would say that the story is worth telling because it's semi-secret. Look at all the shows about secret: the templars, the masons, the occult, secret underground cities, secrets of area 51, secret lives of movie stars... we love hearing about things that are kept from us.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
lem- thanks. I have of course heard of the Urim and Thummim. I just didn't know how it got connected to his hat. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I watch and enjoy Big Love. They have made several controversial choices lately- some of which I think were fine, others I think were questionable. In a prior episode they performed a baptism for the dead for one of the wives' departed mother. That was handled nicely and seemed appropriate to include. On the other hand, they've recently been dealing with a letter written by Woodruff Wilson saying that the LDS church never planned to truly eliminate polygamy and they have a church representative being underhanded and deceptive about the ordeal. I don't totally buy the storyline and it strikes me as striving to be controversial. I wish it wasn't included.
As for this new controversy, I'll have to see the scene to know what I think. From the linked story, it sounded like they were going to show inside an LDS temple. I have trouble understanding how that would fit in to the show as none of the main characters would be allowed inside a temple.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Woodruff Wilson
They actually called Wilford Woodruff "Woodruff Wilson"?!?
Yeesh, the writers of this show need help. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
ha ha ha! whoops...
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I watch and enjoy Big Love. They have made several controversial choices lately- some of which I think were fine, others I think were questionable. In a prior episode they performed a baptism for the dead for one of the wives' departed mother. That was handled nicely and seemed appropriate to include. On the other hand, they've recently been dealing with a letter written by Woodruff Wilson saying that the LDS church never planned to truly eliminate polygamy and they have a church representative being underhanded and deceptive about the ordeal. I don't totally buy the storyline and it strikes me as striving to be controversial. I wish it wasn't included.
As for this new controversy, I'll have to see the scene to know what I think. From the linked story, it sounded like they were going to show inside an LDS temple. I have trouble understanding how that would fit in to the show as none of the main characters would be allowed inside a temple.
AFAICT, Big Love never tried very hard to represent LDS accurately. The first season (I think it was the first) had a Mormon couple befriending Margene, and they attended church and alluded to the LDS woman having drunk too much sacrament wine. That threw me. Then they showed LDS missionaries deliberately harassing Nicki. The first was a most likely honest but frankly clumsy mistake - any LDS or ex-LDS consultant could have explained why it was wrong - and the latter seems deliberately misleading.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Yeah, I watch it, too. I'm interested in the characters in kind of a soap opera way. In terms of how realistically it portrays LDS beliefs, or life in Utah, the answer is not at all. It may as well be set on a space station. In almost every episode they get some detail of Mormonism wrong. Sometimes it's the small details, and sometimes it's the big details. They just have no idea what they're doing.
In past seasons, I felt that even though they portrayed most Mormons (and I mean day-to-day non-Polygamous Mormons -- not compound people) as either conniving-evil or innocent-dumb, they at least made no real effort to smear the Church itself, meaning the leadership or the history. I took the fact that they portrayed _everyone_ on the show that way as flawed writing -- not as malicious intent.
But I have grown increasingly uncomfortable, especially this season, with the way the religion on the show is portrayed. At first, it seemed to me that the errors in the portrayal of Mormonism were likely due to a lack of knowledge (or maybe interest) in their subject matter. Lately, it seems to me that the errors are more and more due to an intent to portray the LDS Church as villainous and twisted and corrupt.
Specifically, there have been plot points this season concerning a letter... First, the show presented it as a letter from Brigham Young ordering the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Now it has evolved into a letter from Wilford Woodruff stating that the LDS Church secretly never intended to abandon polygamy. Either way, the thing both portrayals have in common is in presenting secret evils at the highest levels of the LDS Church.
I think it's safe to say the show has abandoned whatever neutrality it may have had on the subject of religion.
They should not be showing the temple ceremonies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not surprised they've gone to conflating their non-Mormons characters with actual Mormons. Real Mormons have a quite exciting history, a great deal more people, more money, and more power than the splinter groups, and once the novelty of the outsideness of the splinter groups have worn off, there's not really anywhere exciting to go.
It is disappointing.
But I love, love, love the church's response. So much classier than anything I could have or would have written. I love that.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:They should not be showing the temple ceremonies.
No, they shouldn't, but it's not a big deal. Like Tom pointed out, you can get the ceremony off the internet if you google it. The cell-phone thing seems to me to be much worse than what HBO is doing; that requires someone acting deceitfully (posing as a Temple worthy member), or a Mormon breaking his most sacred covenants. To me, that's much more disturbing than the idea that Hollywood wants to exploit X religion's beliefs.
I've never seen the show, so I can't speak for the other mistakes its made regarding Mormonism. I have to wonder though, if they're going to air the modern ceremony, or the one from Wilford Woodruff's days. The polygamists in Big Love would not have access to the modern ceremony...
In any case, I'm going to guess that the audience reaction is going to be more bafflement than anything else. "What? That's it? No sex? No baby killing? No sacrificial altar?"
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Specifically, there have been plot points this season concerning a letter... First, the show presented it as a letter from Brigham Young ordering the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Now it has evolved into a letter from Wilford Woodruff stating that the LDS Church secretly never intended to abandon polygamy. Either way, the thing both portrayals have in common is in presenting secret evils at the highest levels of the LDS Church.
You know, I have always kinda wanted to watch Big Love. I would love to see someone at least try to show Mormonism, particularly fundamentalism, and how it affects different personalities. If they don't even try to get get it right, what's the point?
I would have no problems with them showing the temple ceremony if it was done with a respectful manner (ie Brigham City's sacrament scene) or as a documentary.
I also have little problem with it portraying it it as a secret evil ceremony because I think most people will just roll their eyes and dismiss it. It may even shrink their audience base.
We live in the information age. The truly curious won't be tuning into that show to get *secret* information. Way to handle it Church!!
If in this "controversy" I would have read repeated testimony that they accurately portrayed the church, I may have rented Big Love. Now it's just another series to forget about. It sounds like a waste to me.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I'm not surprised they've gone to conflating their non-Mormons characters with actual Mormons. Real Mormons have a quite exciting history
While I'll agree that Big Love's portrayal of Mormons doesn't always feel completely right, I do not think they conflate their non-LDS characters with actual LDS members. The fact that their characters are not LDS is beyond clear to anybody that actually watches it. So far as the history goes though... "Fundamentalist Mormons" (or whatever you feel comfortable calling them) and LDS share quite a bit of the same history.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
There's a certain point, though, at which two groups of people become so different that their shared history becomes fairly irrelevant to their current states of being. FLDS and LDS groups are possibly the best example I can think of.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I got an email from my mom about this yesterday. It included an episode explanation about it all and the whole thing just made me roll my eyes. This is a pretty obvious attempt to stir up controversy in an attempt to bolster viewership of what is pretty obviously a flagging series.
As for the South Park thing, I've seen numerous Internet conversations on Mormons where the entire knowledge base of those involved included little more than that episode. Personally, I laughed my head off at it because the whole thing was so off the wall. But I could see how the typical up-tight LDS people could be offended. I just wasn't.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The polygamists in Big Love would not have access to the modern ceremony...
Don't they have the internet and cell phones too?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Polygamists think the mainline church has been off base for about 100 years. While I don't know for sure, I can't imagine they'd think the church was off base but still crib their temple ceremony.
My guess would be that they are doing a version of what was done 100 years when they split, not a version of what is done now. The temple ceremony has changed - for one thing, it used to take all day, back when people would only go once in their life.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The problem, for those who aren't LDS, isn't that the ceremony is shown. As has been stated that information is out there for those who want to find out. I do agree with Scott R. as to the immoral and unethical ways that information becomes available. The point is that this is a "sacred" (meaning placed apart from the eyes and participation of the World) ceremony meant for members of the LDS Church. Even then those members have to be faithful and worthy of going. The closest I can come is the feelings of Muslims to the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or graven images in more than one monotheistic religion. It isn't because those things are bad or shameful, but because they are Holy to the faithful.
quote:Most people who are in a position to tell you whether what you're seeing is accurate would decide against helping with this particular line of inquiry.
Maybe in the particulars, but not in the general observance if asked questions. I have noticed over the last decade that the LDS leadership has given out more information about what goes on than since Brigham Young. I believe thanks to Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley that a sub-set of faithful Mormons are more open to discuss the Temple without shutting down the conversation entirely. I find that a good thing; although proper holy decorum is still required.
The two letters discussed about Pres. Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff are indeed real controversies. The one by Brigham Young stating his responsibility is believed by the most hardened critics of the MMM (including Bagley) to really exist. They have all been found by most scholars to be hoaxes or at least highly suspect. The second letter isn't considered directly written by Pres. Wilford Woodruff, and in fact not even attributed to him. Apparently, one of the early members of the Q of the 70 (one of the top leadership positions of Mormonism) wrote a letter explaining he was told by Pres. John Taylor that if polygamy was ever discontinued there would still be a select group of Mormons set apart to keep it alive. Of course, it is that letter writer that was set apart to administer the underground practice. For the earliest and largest poly-Mormon groups this is where they get their line of authority. It is also the reason some poly-Mormons believe they can (or should) retain membership in the mainstream church.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Polygamists think the mainline church has been off base for about 100 years. While I don't know for sure, I can't imagine they'd think the church was off base but still crib their temple ceremony.
Didn't we just decide that accuracy was not necessarily a primary goal for the show?
I would guess that if the on-show ceremony resembles anything in real life it'll be the modern version, probably prior to the 1990 modifications. There's simply more documentation of the modern ceremony and the older version of it has more "controversial" material.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yep to Occ's last paragraph. The two "controversies" they have displayed have not only been incomplete, they have been fabrications.
The letter supposedly setting out that John Taylor told him to keep polygamy alive exists, but anyone can tell you that there is a huge difference between what a leader says when he/she wants to be on record, what a leader says as a personal opinion, and what people say a leader said. That letter is in the final category. From what I've heard, it seems that information was absent from Big Love's portrayal.
----
Oh, I have no idea what the producers are going to try and pass off. Like the church's press release said, it doesn't really matter.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Boris, I agree, this episode is intended to draw on a an audience interested in the controversy. The more people talk about this show and what they're doing, the more people will watch the show.
I think there's more to it than that though. I think the producer has a not so hidden agenda to use his show to strike at the LDS religion for their support of Prop 8.
Tom Hanks is the Executive Producer of this show, and he said after the prop 8 passing that he would show what Mormons are really like in Big Love this year. The two directors of the show are gay and big time against the church. They have only anti-Mormons as the shows advisors.
I believe it's a bad portrayal of LDS members, since they don't seem to hardly attend church, and yet they live in SLC. They really mock the scriptures and prayers, and now he is really going to far with this show.
Someone already said this, but I find it interesting how the characters are clearly of the reformed LDS church, or some polygamous splinter group, yet they are going to the Temple to perform a Temple ceremony? How is this possible? They wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any temple after the regular public viewing during the open house of a new Temple (awesome stuff, by the way, and I encourage any and all to find a new Temple, and find out when the open house is so you can go through it and see all the rooms). Temple ceremonies aren't SECRET, they're SACRED. I would think for something to be sacred is more important than something secret. I hold something near and dear when it's sacred, and when it's secret I just hold it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:he said after the prop 8 passing that he would show what Mormons are really like in Big Love this year
Do you have a link for that?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Not to mention, exactly how much will they show? I mean, they can't do a whole lot of it considering it would take up the episode. That does worry me even more because there isn't even going to be proper context. Not to mention, exactly what parts will they end up showing? Considering their sources, they will probably depict some pre-1990 parts that are the most controversial.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Katharina, I'll research. This is information from my brother-in-law. He's an honest lawyer who works for the IRS (funny how I feel the need to add the word "honest" in front of the word "lawyer"), and he keeps himself on top of political and religious information. I'll ask him if he knows of any link for that site. We are in very much different time zones, so bear with me- I'll do what I can to get it up here quickly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think I know what he is referring to, and Tom Hanks never said what you said that he did. He did say that Mormons were un-American for some of them supporting Prop 8. He later apologized for the statement.
Someone could speculate that he is using Big Love as a platform to trash Mormons, but it would only be speculation. It isn't fair to repeat speculation as fact.
I think in a thread where Mormons want the producers of Big Love to stick to what they can back up, it is important to be able to back up what we say about the producers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
This is what Tom Hanks said:
quote:The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen. There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.
This was at a Big Love premiere party, but there was no explicit statement about exposing what "Mormons are really like" in Big Love. He has since apologized for the "un-American" portion of this statement.
EDIT: Too slow.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"They have only anti-Mormons as the shows advisors."
Ex-Mormon is not the same as anti-Mormon. (Though I realize that a lot of the harshest critics of the church are ex members.)
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Re: the temple ceremony.
It's quite clear in the show that the main characters, the Henrickson family, are not mainstream LDS; indeed, much of the plot of the show revolves around their attempts to hide their polygamy.
It appears - though nobody seems to know for certain yet - that the temple depicted here is not a fundamentalist temple, but rather a mainline LDS one. This could work in one of two ways - 1)Barb, the wife in the photo, was born LDS, not fundamentalist, and has attempted to conceal her involvement in polygamy. Much of the plot has involved her embarrassment at being discovered by family and friends, and attempts to avoid it. Thus, it's entirely possible she still has a temple recommend, posing in a ward as a woman married to a non-member (which is technically true). This does occasionally happen; I could give names of real people in just such a situation. Given that according to TV Guide, she leaves the temple in disgrace, it's possible that the episode might involve her being found out while in the temple.
Alternatively, 2) some fundamentalists forge or steal temple recommends to worship at one of the temples built while (so they believe) the LDS Church still had God's favor - Manti, Logan, St George, or Salt Lake. It's possible Barb did this and was again, found out.
Here's something I wrote in an email to somebody else.
1) I applaud the Newroom's call for maturity and restraint; that's precisely what's called for. Thicker skin and the ability to deal graciously with offense - intended or otherwise - is the hallmark of a mature faith.
2) However, at the same time, I'm not sure that it's fair to lump Big Love in with September Dawn and other items on the list. Here's the thing about Big Love, based on what I've seen of it. It very clearly distinguishes between the Henrickson family and the broader LDS church.
It is also incorrect, I think, for the release to characterize the characters as "unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous."
Rather, the show's writers and creators have a great deal of sympathy for the Henricksons' faith; the things they believe and the practices they engage in (like the baptism for the dead a couple weeks ago; a Catholic guy I know made a point of coming up to me and raving about it - I suspect that those few minutes did more to make the concept make sense to non-Mormons than anything the church has done to date. When the man repeated Bill's line "Not one soul will be lost," he had a hitch in his voice) are never depicted in a less than respectful and moving fashion. Perhaps the release intends for that caveat to apply only to the LDS characters on the show; there, I think, there's a bit more ground to make the case, but as a broad generalization it's not true.
3) Given that, I think there's a qualitative difference between what Big Love is doing in depicting the temple ceremonies and what September Dawn was doing when it did the same thing. Barb in Big Love wants to go to the temple because she believes it is what is claims to be; being excommunicated, which is, I gather, what will happen in the episode, is devastating to her. September Dawn, on the other hand, wanted viewers to think the temple was cultish and pagan.
4) All that given, I suspect the real issue here is not the nature or intentions of the source in question, but the simple act of depicting the temple ceremony at all. Three thoughts here.
a) First, clearly, most contemporary Mormons feel that regardless of whatever the ceremony itself says about what should or should not be kept secret, all of it should. This extends even to official discourse within the institution itself. Noah Feldman's concept of 'soft-secrecy,' twentieth century Mormons' proclivity to minimize those things which might seem odd or disturbing to contemporary Americans may play a role here, even within the Church. Clearly, the temple is quite important to all Mormons, but I think a fair number of members of the Church also find it odd and somewhat dissonant with the very low church faith of the ward house; not speaking of it is a way to avoid bringing this into the open. Now, I don't think this is a conscious strategy on anybody's part; rather, I think that it's human nature to read the inherent strangeness of high ritual as sacred-in-itself. Secrecy is a way to maintain that strangeness, and to protect it.
b) This secrecy is one place where the cultural assimilation of Mormonism to American society in general grinds to a halt. The rough and tumble American public sphere views secrecy as inherently suspect, incompatible, ultimately, with democracy. There's a certain amount of religious integrity with the Newsroom's protests.
c) So, the part of me that's impatient with Mormon hyperdefensiveness is annoyed by the facebook groups and futile email chains. The part of me that's annoyed with Mormon assimilationism is not.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Katharina and MattP (not B),
You mentioned there wasn't any explicit statement about exposing what "mormons are really like," well maybe he didn't say the exact words I suggested he said, but if what you pasted IS word for word then what does this sound like to you?
_______________________________ "but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible" _______________________________
But it's worse than that, because his next line is: _______________________________ "and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards" _______________________________
What is he implying here . . . it seems to me he's inviting the public, or Big Love audience to use the light that is to be shed on the show that will display the people responsible for the Prop 8 passing- then suggesting there's some kind of "self correcting" system that will deal with these "un-Americans," the LDS church members. What exactly is he referring to there, with the "self correcting" system that might allow America to move foreward instead of backwards with these "un-Americans?"
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I'm with kat and the other Matt on this, beleaugered.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
beleaguered, are you being serious? Assume he's talking only about political processes, I think that should answer your questions.
MattB, interesting post! I do think that "unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous" refers only to the mainstream LDS characters in the show (all minor characters AFAIK), and based on the parts I've seen, I think that's a fair characterization.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
From the sheet I got from my mother, it's very apparent that the producers realize that this is offensive to Mormons, and that they really don't care. The timing is suspicious to me, and if it really is related to Prop 8, I hope the producers realize that if there is ever anything that can prove that fact, it's going to blow up in their faces.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What exactly is he referring to there, with the "self correcting" system that might allow America to move foreward instead of backwards with these "un-Americans?"
IMO, he's expressing the ideal that we generally move towards better things and greater equality, possibly invoking the same mechanism that eventually ended slavery and diminished greatly the practice of racism and sexism.
But this is idle speculation. I don't think Big Love or HBO are part of any self-correcting mechanism for Constitutional reform, even in Tom Hanks' mind.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:From the sheet I got from my mother
A "sheet"?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Matt, I think you're pretty far off-base in your speculation about the show. In the most recent episode, Barb's sister told the Bishop of the ward where the Hendricksons live that she is living in plural marriage. I think what will probably happen is that once inside the temple, the Bishop will show up (or be there by coincidence) and will out her. How she gets a temple recommend, I'm not sure. We'll have to wait and see.
As for the comments about the Mormons on the show being depicted as petty and narrow. Absolutely they are. I refer not to the Hendricksons, but to the people who are depicted as actual Mormons on the show. There is not one among them who is decent. On the show, missionaries are secretly spies. Barb's practicing mother and sister are vindictive and backbiting. Her brother in law betrays Bill over and over again, supposedly acting on behalf of nebulous church authorities. The only LDS character portrayed in a positive light is innocent-dumb (the teenage daughter's best friend) rather than evil and conniving. She's not treated realistically either.
As to the question of the existence of the letters, as depicted in the show.... The problem is that they are presented as factual, existing items (within the story, anyway). Not as things rumored to possibly exist.
I have no doubt, now, that the show is grinding an axe. For what reason, I don't know -- though we could all speculate. I do think it might have something to do with Proposition 8. The timing of the change in the nature of the way the show depicts the religion just works out very well. Of course, that is only speculation.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
TL - thanks for the plot clarification - I've not actually seen the current season. I imagine you're correct; Barb will be outed in the temple.
As to the letters - there is actually a presumed John Taylor revelation that states more or less what the WW revelation discussed here does. Here's a link to the wikipedia article on it; the article states it's missing, but word on the street has it in Church Archives.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Does Lance Black still do writing for Big Love? If so that to me is a likely place for where this direction is coming from.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
MattB,
Of all places to find information about religious fact and practice, I wouldn't trust a wiki site. Anyone can go in and update or change or fabricate information. I do trust Wikipedia for many things, such as general word or people information, but on something such as the possible existence of a letter such as what you're referring to, I wouldn't trust it for one second. It is a source, nonetheless, and could be taken any which way- knowing it's a wiki site.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Somewhere yesterday (I guess not this thread?) I saw an explanation of how the temple scene if they are not members in good standing. They were, before there was wife #2, and this is a flashback.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:From the sheet I got from my mother
A "sheet"?
Page. Sheet. Whatever. I'm guessing it was an excerpt of the TV Guide ad for the show, but it was just one page without any identifying markers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Of all places to find information about religious fact and practice, I wouldn't trust a wiki site.
MattB is extremely well-versed in LDS history and theology. I'm sure he pointed us to the wiki more for our own easy access than because he treats it as a primary source.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Page. Sheet. Whatever. I'm guessing it was an excerpt of the TV Guide ad for the show, but it was just one page without any identifying markers.
Gotcha. It wasn't clear what you were talking about - it sounded like maybe some sort of handout that someone had made about the issue.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
beleaguered, like MattP says, I can refer you to scholarly books that discuss that revelation if you'd like.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The revelation, however, is much like the "White Horse Prophecy" letter. It is the kind that says that so-and-so told me, or someone told me that so-and-so said. I hold both with the same amount of belief: None.
As to the HBO topic, I do find it funny that those who are talking about it most are (aside from the usual crackpots - speaking generally and not about Hatrack) Mormons. This is heartening in that I don't think people really care that much. Yet, it is ironically making more out of it by those who want less made. Personally, I think that is because the Temple is a subject that for too long has not had enough inner-Mormonism discussion. Sacred doesn't mean taboo, even if discretion is necessary.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Somewhere yesterday (I guess not this thread?) I saw an explanation of how the temple scene if they are not members in good standing. They were, before there was wife #2, and this is a flashback.
That makes complete sense. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:As for the comments about the Mormons on the show being depicted as petty and narrow. Absolutely they are. I refer not to the Hendricksons, but to the people who are depicted as actual Mormons on the show. There is not one among them who is decent
What about Pam and her husband? They're the Henrickson's neighbors who found out that they were polygamous. Before they found out, I can't remember them ever being painted as anything but nice people. After they found out, they've stayed friends with the Henricksons and kept their secret. And while Heather is naive, her portrayal has been very positive. That's half of the LDS members regularly shown.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Amanecer- Pam has some issues too. Like the fact that her husband is going to leaver her for being infertile (which would not go over well with any LDS bishop I have met). And her prescription drug use. Of course, I view the show as a soap opera and everyone on a soap opera is supposed to be dramatic. As I said in a different thread, a nice normal family is hard to incorporate in a soap opera.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<skims the thread and is once again glad that she doesn't watch tv>
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm actually pretty sure that Heather is going to eventually (maybe next season-ish) realize that she's a lesbian and leave the church. They've been foreshadowing that since the first few episodes, I think.
I don't mean to indicate that portraying her as a lesbian would be to portray her in some villainous role; it's just that I have my doubts as to whether or not they'll allow a decent person to remain in good standing with the LDS church.
They've filled her statements about her beliefs with so many non-sequitors. And every crisis she encounters seems to erode her faith, just a bit. She is constantly in the position of having to choose between what she thought she believed about her religion, and he friendship with Sarah.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that by the time the series ends, she will have resolved these conflicts by leaving the church. We shall see. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Now, I don't mean to sound all woe-is-me about this. Most members of this forum know that I am no longer a member of the LDS Church. However, I was raised as a member, and remained a member until early adulthood. My family is active. The best people I ever knew were/are LDS.
I don't believe the religious tenants, but I don't think it's an evil church or anything. I think they do a lot of good (and some bad).
But somehow it matters to me that it be treated fairly, and often it isn't. I used to enjoy Big Love on the basis that, although it was totally fantastic, it was a fun show with interesting characters and didn't seem particularly to be grinding an axe against the church. Sure, it got every detail wrong, and didn't seem to care. But its purpose didn't seem to be to say: "Look at what dopes these Mormons be."
I'm just disappointed that that has changed. And I no longer trust the writers to be neutral. In fact, I am convinced that they will not be. Whatever shift has occurred, for whatever reason -- they've begun to grind that axe. I just don't think it's too cool. If I thought they were still objective, I wouldn't actually care about the depiction of the temple ceremony.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
MattB, I'm with Occasional when it comes to the revelation you're referring to. I have no desire to dive into something that holds no relevance to me now.
TL brings up a very good point. I see a shift change also with the show. They might have been neutral, or seemingly neutral about the way they portray the LDS community, but something has shifted. If the shift IS the Prop 8 issue in California, then things can turn really ugly on the show.
I'm worried the show will become a political platform for the producer and writers. They've begun to grind that axe and the show's producer makes public comments about the LDS church that are so strong with regards to prop 8 that he retracts his comments (looked like a prepared speech to me) . . . it's all suspicious to me.
I'm not worried about the church's over all reputation while this silly show takes their jabs and right hooks, but I have lost all respect for Mr. Tom Hanks as the show's producer, and for his comments.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't believe the religious tenants
*whisper* Tenets.
---------
quote:I have lost all respect for Mr. Tom Hanks as the show's producer...
Why?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:*whisper* Tenets.
Right! Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I'm actually pretty sure that Heather is going to eventually (maybe next season-ish) realize that she's a lesbian and leave the church.
Don't say that. You'll just encourage slashfic writers.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:MattB, I'm with Occasional when it comes to the revelation you're referring to. I have no desire to dive into something that holds no relevance to me now.
Hey, fair enough, and I'm hardly a fundamentalist evangelist. My primary point is that the show's plot twist is not precisely from outer space.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't see why anyone would care about such a document. Modern day, the church has never said we will never ever allow polygamy. And since we have multiple sealings in the temple, it is pretty clear we are ok with the idea of polygamy when we are dead. And it is kinda one of the favorite what ifs for people to talk about (what if the church reinstated polygamy).
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
scholarette - I think your last three sentences exhibit exactly why folks interested in studying Mormonism might be interested in the document.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Let me rephrase- I can see why people would be interested. I don't see why the church would be ashamed and hide it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MattB: BTW, thanks for that long post, particularly point 4. I thought thats was pretty interesting and informative.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Try this link out. Many of you should find it interesting. The LDS church came out with this video as an answer to the Big Love controversy, and posted it to youtube.
[ March 14, 2009, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: beleaguered ]
Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
I've been away for a while, but I heard about this Big Love controversy. I'm pretty disgusted they want to display what the LDS faith holds as sacred. This has been said atleast 50 times already in this thread, so I'll go to something new.
Beleaguered, The link you provided for the youtube video, that's pretty good. I am somewhat familiar with LDS temples, but had no idea so many other religious leaders (NOT Mormon) had anything meaningful to say about them. That's a good video, and I think it might be a good defense against whatever the show Big Love can do. Does anyone think this proactive response by the church will satisfy those feeding into the controversy Big Love producers and directors might have wanted to start? Do you think this video qualifies as being "proactive"?
[ March 14, 2009, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: DC Morphis ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have a few other clips from a show that I found on Youtube. My favorites are:
[ March 14, 2009, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I understand the problem here and recognize the perceived rights of people with, I don't want to use the word 'secrets' so how about 'private rituals'.
However, I wonder if people feel that this is different from the public release of Scientology's private rituals?
If it is not in your opinion objectively different, do you have a different gut reaction to publicizing Scientology's private rituals instead of publicizing LDS private rituals?
I objectively consider them the same.
I think any private society that has private rituals is inevitably in danger of even mild opposition overriding non-believer/non-participant respect. To a non-participant, it does not take much to break the gentleman's agreement. Any friction, for example a large donation to an opposing cause, will be a catalyst for breaking this unwritten privacy agreement.
Although objectively we may regard the private rituals of the Church of Scientology and the Church of... Latter Day Saints as equally subject to respect it is clear--at least to me--that because Scientology is widely regarded with disdain due to its questionable practices that more people find overriding its claims to privacy acceptable.
When it comes to the media, the agreement is even more easy to override. The media, both fictional and non-fictional is given to doing things that other people don't do, and I'm not so sure it doesn't.
All this said, much of this seems to be about the fact the ceremony is sacred, not private. In fact, people go out of their way to insist the ceremony is not secret but "sacred". Now, this is odd because all religious ceremonies are sacred, but not many are secret.
I do get a strange feeling that "sacred" is a euphemism here for "private". Or perhaps in LDS world, sacred does carry that added meaning of private that doesn't exist elsewhere. In which case there's a lot of crossing of wires going on.
quote:However, Shelley says, "we hold (the ceremonies) sacred," and the public often mistakes this as secretive behavior.
"People seem to think there's something weird there because we don't discuss it openly," she says.
Forgive me, but it is clearly a private ceremony. It is secretive behavior to not discuss something openly. To say, "this is not private but I won't discuss it" is political jargon for "it's private". And that's fine. Lots of societies have private rites and regulations which they keep mostly to themselves.
I feel that the mixed messages that are being given off about this ceremony are only confusing the matter further.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the Church of... Latter Day Saints
Why did you edit the name of the church?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Now, this is odd because all religious ceremonies are sacred, but not many are secret.
I do get a strange feeling that "sacred" is a euphemism here for "private". Or perhaps in LDS world, sacred does carry that added meaning of private that doesn't exist elsewhere.
There are many ceremonies in religions world-wide that are both sacred and not for general public viewing. I really don't see how you can claim this is unique to the LDS Church.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Poteiro: It was the consequence of a series of rethinks. First I had just LDS, then I thought hm, seems wrong, so I decided to add the "Church of" then I realised that it might not be the right name, looked it up but instead of typing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or shortening it to the CoJCoLDS, because it was long, I just put in the ellipse.
I assure you, there is nothing more to it than a series of events.
Puffy: You answered your own question by seperating the word "sacred" and the phrase "not for general public viewing".
Usually, what I called 'elsewhere', the word "sacred" does not inherently include a privacy caveat. It seems that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the word sacred does.
I know the CoJCoLDS is not unique in the privacy of their ceremonies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nods to Teshi* The LDS church tends to use the word "sacred" to mean "so sacrosanct that it's also private." As in "no, you can't share my cookie. It's sacred." Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course we say that to you, swine. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nods to Teshi* The LDS church tends to use the word "sacred" to mean "so sacrosanct that it's also private." As in "no, you can't share my cookie. It's sacred."
I agree that "so sacrosanct that it's also private" is one common usage of "sacred" among LDS. (Though the cookie thing is misleading; there's not much reason to compare temple ceremonies to a sweet morsel one wants to himself.)
However the LDS church also uses sacred to refer to things that are not subject to the same sort of reticence. Baptism, sex between married couples (though not the mechanics thereof), laying on of hands: all of these things are "sacred," yet not subject to the same level of hushed reverence as the temple ceremonies.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
That's funny, I always thought sex between a married couple was "sacred" like the temple ceremonies ... IOW, something wonderful that is private and not something everyone is invited to see.
But no, even in LDS circles the word doesn't necessarily mean private or secret. Only in certain cases.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I agree with Scifi, that the word sacred is used to describe many aspects of the LDS gospel, and is only used with reverence with temple ceremonies.
Not just anyone can enter the temple. A person needs to be deemed spiritually and emotionally prepared by his/her bishop, and then by a member of his/her stake presidency. The preparedness doesn't necessarily need to become another discussion, since it is really more simple than it might sound. The meetings with both bishop and stake president (bishop is the equivelent of any basic clergyman, and stake president oversees many different congregations within an area) consist of a basic conversation- nothing fancy.
Jenna, lol- Yes, my sex life with my wife is very sacred and private between just us, and is not put on display.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Well, I watched it, and I was surprised to find that when the scene was over I felt ashamed. I didn't expect to feel that. It felt disrespectful to be watching that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Yes, my sex life with my wife is very sacred and private between just us, and is not put on display.
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014: Well, I watched it...
That was a rather unfortunate posting congruence.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Yes, my sex life with my wife is very sacred and private between just us, and is not put on display.
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014: Well, I watched it...
That was a rather unfortunate posting congruence.
That depends on what Valentine was watching.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I watched it (the show) as well. For any that don't watch the show but are curious about the context, here it is. Barb, the first wife, was LDS up until 7 years ago and is still very attached to the LDS church. When she finds out that she's going to be excommunicated, she begs her sister and mother to let her borrow one of their temple recommends so that she can go one last time to partake in something that she sees as extremely holy and sacred. Her sister is the one who set the excommunication in process and she feels guilty and presumably gives Barb the recommend.
The scene is very short but also did not feel necessary. While the scene did show how very much Barb loved the church and how painful it was for her to choose between her family and the LDS church, I know there are many other ways they could have accomplished the same thing.
To be honest, I was a lot more annoyed with the excommunication event than with the temple ceremony. Barb accused them of it being about the letter- which doesn't make much sense as polygamy is enough in and of itself. I really hate how they're using this imaginary letter to paint the church as corrupt and self-serving. I would not have a problem with an exploration of those themes if they were based on something real, but to paint a real organization as deceitful based on something pretend is highly annoying to me.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
This is terrible- not referring to the sex life comment, but the way the scenes played out as according to Amancer and Valentine.
I don't know how the show's ratings for that episode compare to any of their average episodes, and haven't heard anything in particular about the episode from any friends or family. I'm not sure what effect the show and that episode will have, if any, but what's terrible is they didn't seem to be very tactful or tasteful with their portrayal of the temple ceremony and the LDS faith in general.
What does the producer and directors have against the LDS church, that they insist on using fabrication to suggest corruption and deceit?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The worst part is it's going to work. There will be plenty of people (well, not plenty, since not many people even watch this show) who are going to think the made up stuff is real.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think this is like what happened to the Catholic Church with The Da Vinci Code. That book and movie painted the Catholic Church as presently and historically corrupt and fabricated out of thin air "evidence" to do it with.
It's the price of a higher profile, I guess. Some people get a kick out of destruction - it makes them feel powerful to attack what others treasure.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I hate to do this, but since you compared this show with the movie The Da Vinci Code, I had to point out a similarity- Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks produces Big Love, and he's the lead actor in The Da Vinci Code. Okay, it's a poor connection since actors have very little to do with the actual play or say of a movie, but there you go.
Katharina, I think you're right, some people get a kick out of destruction. I wonder how the Catholic church felt about The Da Vinci Code, and how they feel about its sequel, the movie Angels and Demons. If you want a movie that will show the church in a very poor light, it's that one. That movie won't be good for the Catholic church in my opinion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"There are many ceremonies in religions world-wide that are both sacred and not for general public viewing."
Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
One of the reasons that the da vinci code was so popular was that it came out at a time when many already believed the catholic church was corrupt. I'm not sure it convinced more then a few that the church was corrupt, because its audience had believed that prior to reading the book or seeing the movie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
I know that when I tried to enter a mosque, I was turned away because I was not a Muslim. I was told several times that I should have my copy of the Koran taken from me by force because I was not a Muslim.
The choosing of a new Pope is not open to public scrutiny.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yeah, the Tom Hanks connection is weak - he may have agreed to be part of it, but he didn't start either Da Vinci code project.
I don't think conspiracy theories about Tom Hanks are helpful. It doesn't take a conspiracy to make this an insensitive action.
quote:Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
Personally no, because I don't know a great deal about the private ceremonies of religions I don't ascribe to.
However, I'd be absolutely shocked and floored if the LDS sealing ceremony takes the top spot.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Posted by Katharina Yeah, the Tom Hanks connection is weak - he may have agreed to be part of it, but he didn't start either Da Vinci code project.
I don't think conspiracy theories about Tom Hanks are helpful. It doesn't take a conspiracy to make this an insensitive action.
You're right, and I didn't mean to implicate a conspiracy against Tom Hanks. I believe these entertainers are just trying to entertain their audience and make a buck- Like Ron Howard with the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. I don't think he has any alterior motives with producing and directing these movies (he didn't produce Angels and Demons, only the Da Vinci Code), because he hasn't made any political statements against the Catholic church or its practices (to my knowledge). For Tom Hanks to make those comments about the LDS church, then produce the show that portrays the church in such a way, I start to wonder what his real motives are. His comments are posted at the top of page two.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:When she finds out that she's going to be excommunicated, she begs her sister and mother to let her borrow one of their temple recommends so that she can go one last time to partake in something that she sees as extremely holy and sacred. Her sister ... presumably gives Barb the recommend.
Ugh, ugh, ugh.
This just really makes me shudder. My first thought is that a person who would lend their recommend doesn't have much respect for the temple herself - but then I've never been begged by my much-beloved sister to borrow one.
I still can't imagine any excuse that would make me do it, but I'm glad I'm not in that position.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The last time I went to the temple, they scanned the barcode and checked my ID against the name on the reccomend. In other words, borrowing her sister's reccomend wouldn't work.
However, that has just been started in the last few years. Depending how long ago their ex-Mormon advisor left the church, I'm not surprised their information is out of date.
quote:His comments are posted at the top of page two.
I know - I posted a link to them as well. I just don't think that imaging what Tom Hanks's "real" motivations might be is useful in anyway. It is speculation, and rampant speculation is a big part of what we are objecting to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The last time I went to the temple, they scanned the barcode and checked my ID against the name on the reccomend. In other words, borrowing her sister's reccomend wouldn't work.
However, that has just been started in the last few years. Depending how long ago their ex-Mormon advisor left the church, I'm not surprised their information is out of date.
Which temple was this? I attended the Salt Lake Temple in December and wasn't asked for ID so it clearly isn't done everywhere or everytime.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The last time I went to the temple, they scanned the barcode and checked my ID against the name on the reccomend. In other words, borrowing her sister's reccomend wouldn't work.
However, that has just been started in the last few years. Depending how long ago their ex-Mormon advisor left the church, I'm not surprised their information is out of date.
Which temple was this? I attended the Salt Lake Temple in December and wasn't asked for ID so it clearly isn't done everywhere or everytime.
I went to the Provo temple three weeks ago and they never asked for ID they just scanned my recommend and let me in. It occurred to me I could still easily get in with a recommend that was not mine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Washington D.C.
Maybe people are more used to checking IDs here. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
I know that when I tried to enter a mosque, I was turned away because I was not a Muslim. I was told several times that I should have my copy of the Koran taken from me by force because I was not a Muslim.
Where were you? I've visited plenty of mosques, in Albania, Turkey and the USA. I never tried to walk through while they were holding a service, and I didn't ask to see every single room in the building. But I'm about as non-Muslim-looking as you can get, and I was never made to feel anything but welcome while touring the mosques.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I haven't been asked for ID in Boston. Maybe the greeter in D.C. just thought Kat looked a little shifty.
I believe the Church temple committee is planning on linking temple recommends with a remotely stored photo, so when the barcode is scanned, the photo will appear on the greeter's computer screen, allowing for visual identity confirmation. Caveat: that information came second- or third-hand, so accept it with a grain of salt, I suppose. I did hear it from two independent sources, though (IIRC).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "There are many ceremonies in religions world-wide that are both sacred and not for general public viewing."
Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
First thing that came to mind was in Jewish temples when the ark was within that only the high priest was permitted to enter the holy of holies. Unbelievers were not permitted to enter the inner sanctums of the temple.
I also thought of Masonic rituals where only the initiated are permitted to participate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Speed--
Good to hear; I wasn't sure whether there were religious objections to allowing non-Muslims into the mosques, or whether it was a minority population being defensive.
I went in Italy, and it was not a time when services were being held.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When I lived in Malaysia my entire family visited a mosque. They had my mother and sister wear clothes that covered their hair and everything below the neck, and we removed our shoes but other than that we were free to walk around and take in the beautiful building.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Katharina, I think you're right, some people get a kick out of destruction. I wonder how the Catholic church felt about The Da Vinci Code, and how they feel about its sequel, the movie Angels and Demons. If you want a movie that will show the church in a very poor light, it's that one. That movie won't be good for the Catholic church in my opinion.
To be fair, along with a lot of good stuff, there is enough weird, secretive, and gothically conspiratorial stuff in our history to feed the imaginations of scores of bad novelists. One of the side effects of a 2000 year old religion that has a great deal of money and power.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have also visited a mosque. There was a prayer service about to begin, and we were told that if we wanted to pray we were welcome to participate, but if not there was another room where we could sit and talk until the service was over. They didn't want sightseers in the room while the service was happening, which makes sense to me. When we toured a cathedral in London they had tourists walking through and taking pictures while the service was happening. That seemed odd.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not interested in the general public's opinions of temple ceremonies. Just for the record. It's not a performance, and I don't think you can lament things being public and then ask for opinions at the same time. The respectful will not wish to further offend, and the disrespectfuls' opinions would not be edifying.
I read a detailed account of the episode elsewhere and counted five inaccuracies (color of some clothing, color of the altar, the person whose recommend she was using being in the temple with her (what reccomend did that person use?), the time limit in the celestial room (no one will ever kick you out unless the temple itself is closing for the night), Barb asking to "take out her endowments" (that phrasing is only used for the first time you go, and it requires a different reccomend than the standard one) ). Six, if you count the apparent lack of ID check although apparently not all temples do that. However, it still isn't a big deal. It certainly was gratuitous, but it will fade away without any affect on the church.
[ March 16, 2009, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Your probably right katharina. Post deleted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Discussion is further obstructed by the fact that despite nonbelievers knowing what goes on in the temple from watching this show or from another source Mormons still do not discuss in detail these ordinances outside the temple.
That pretty much leaves viewers to discuss them with other nonbelievers, apostates, and Mormons who can't constrain themselves. It's unfortunate that anybody had to be exposed to those sacraments in that manner, I wish all people could learn about them in the way with which they were designed.
[ March 16, 2009, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Having read a synopsis of the episode, the depiction of the temple is neither the source of most of the inaccuracies or the worst part. The stake president "admits" they are excommunicating her over the (imaginary) letter? Like polygamy wouldn't be enough? No, it has to be for corrupt and vindictive institutional reasons. Whatever story they are trying to tell, they are inventing a villian and pretending it is the church.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: the person whose recommend she was using being in the temple with her (what reccomend did that person use?)
Even I wondered that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We have some stuff that is that kind of secret. This is less the case since the Second Vatican Council (of course). In some places and at some times the Consecration part of the Mass was hidden (or at least somewhat obscured) from the congregation. Some places still celebrate that way.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The stake president "admits" they are excommunicating her over the (imaginary) letter?
I don't remember any such admission from the scene. She accused them of it being about the letter. They just ignored her and continued asking about repenting polygamy. They didn't say "what letter are you talking about?" so it did seem like they had at least heard of it, but it would be a bit of a stretch to say that they admitted something.
I did think her reaction about the undergarment question was a bit off. "Are you seriously asking me what underwear I am wearing?" Uh, yeah, that seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask an LDS member. Not being a member, can't say if my reaction is valid or not.
I too wondered how the sister could be in there at the same time, but since I didn't know jack squat about the security process I assumed there must be some way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I too wondered how the sister could be in there at the same time, but since I didn't know jack squat about the security process I assumed there must be some way.
There is only one recommend, and you show it as you walk in. For two people to get in on the same recommend, the person on the inside has to pass it to the person on the outside. I don't think that's possible without getting seriously squirrelly concerning exploring the temple and finding a back door somewhere. I mean, I'm sure there are emergency exits and things, but generally everyone goes in and out the same place. You can't just hand it over.
That's not even counting the bar code, which would show the same person entering the temple twice without the checker seeing them exit.
What temple were they supposed to be at? Salt Lake, right? Security IS pretty tight there - I don't think there is a way to slip a recommend back out again, really. I suspect that rather the storytellers wanted all three women there together and ignored the hows.
[ March 16, 2009, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I just assumed they had gotten her someone else's recommend.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That would mean someone else with a recommend was okay with handing it over. If it took the sobs of a dear sister to pry the one, I can't imagine what plausible excuse they'd have to have someone else convinced enough to break their promises and give it up.
[ March 16, 2009, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Money? Blackmail?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's sort of self-defeating. One of the conditions of getting one is you won't loan or sell it. A member in good standing would not be okay with selling it (literally), and when it comes to blackmail, anything serious enough to be blackmailed about would bar someone from getting a recommend in the first place. I guess they could have lied in order to get the recommend, but at this point that's really, really a stretch.
Basically, loaning a recommend means you lose it at the next interview unless you lie, so I have a hard time believing a member in good standing would do it without a strong personal reason. A sister begging for one more chance I can believe. Loaning it to someone in the ward without explanation I can't. Any explanation would push the whole situation into seriously melodramatic, implausible territory.
ETA: One "c", two "m"s.
[ March 16, 2009, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I guess they could have lied in order to get the recommend, but at this point that's really, really a stretch."
You think it's a stretch to lie in order to get a recommend, or just that it would be hard to locate and pressure such a person?
Of course, there's always theft. Stealing a purse from a random woman in Utah bears a decent chance of walking away with a recommend. If you have access to a place where women leave them laying around, it'd be pretty darn easy to find one without immediately raising an alarm. Use it quick and you can easily get in before it's reported missing.
*Not a recommendation to steal, especially not worthiness cards.
Posted by Selran (Member # 9918) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Stealing a purse from a random woman in Utah bears a decent chance of walking away with a recommend.
Is it a requirement to keep them on you? Because it seems like this would be an important document you would want to keep in a safe place unless you needed it.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Can you report it lost/stolen and get another one?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That pretty much leaves viewers to discuss them with other nonbelievers, apostates, and Mormons who can't constrain themselves. It's unfortunate that anybody had to be exposed to those sacraments in that manner, I wish all people could learn about them in the way with which they were designed.
The LDS has the option to open the temples up to the public and show people the ceremonies if they wish to avoid this.
It is an option I expect to be exercised in my lifetime.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"It is an option I expect to be exercised in my lifetime."
Do you mean allow public attendance, or simply to make the information (perhaps including a video recording) available through official channels?
The former I think is pretty unlikely. Maybe if you get old and everything else about society becomes very open and transparent in general leaving this as a rare exception for a number of years.
The latter I think is more likely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If it happened in isolation, it wouldn't be melodramatic. It is rare, though, so that it happens to occur at precisely the right moment so Barb's sister could pick it up the exact week she gives her own recommend to her sister is definitely a stretch. It isn't like there is a lively black market. If you lose yours, you get another one, but it has a different bar code and the previous one is no longer valid. It's like replacing a credit card, except they never go through the mail. You pick it up in person.
Basically, a single event wouldn't be compelely out there. However, the series of unlikely events and coincidences that would have to happen in order for Barb's sister to be in the temple after giving up her own recommend is definitely out there. It is possible to get out quickly and illicitly (using scifibum's suggestion), but I just can't see the character Barb's sister is supposed to be agonizing about giving her own recommend to her sister and then being okay with swiping the purse and using the worthiness card of a stranger off the street.
It's much more likely the writers were just lazy and/or don't understand how recommends work. That's my guess - their adviser's temple experiences predate the bar codes.
quote:It is an option I expect to be exercised in my lifetime.
Based on what? Augery?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Can you report it lost/stolen and get another one?
If a recommend is lost, the person goes to the inteviewing Bishop and Stake President and requests a new one. The Bishop and Stake President maintain a record of what recommends were issued, when, and to whom, so once they verify this person had a recommend they can issue a new one. Or the person can simply go through the interview process again.
Before the bar codes were incorporated (about two years ago), the theft of a recommend would mean that there was a usable recommend in the hands of whomever stole it; there was no way to impede the use of the recommend. Now, when the person recognizes the theft and requests a new one, the previous one is deactivated and anyone attempting to use it would be asked some uncomfortable questions (albeit those questions are likely to come from a very friendly and non-threatening septagenarian).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The LDS has the option to open the temples up to the public and show people the ceremonies if they wish to avoid this.
*nods* The best way to avoid mischaracterizations is to, um, characterize yourself.
I'd be thrilled to see an open discussion of the details of the temple ceremony from "proper" authorities on the subject. On everything else the answer is "If you want to know about Mormons, ask a Mormon?" I wish I could!
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Can you report it lost/stolen and get another one?
Yes, but they would cancel the old one and give you one with a new bar code on it. Then the temple would know that the old one had been canceled. They're good for two years, so if anything happens to a person to make them unable to attend the temple within the two years after the recommend was issued, it would still appear to be valid and could still be used by a dishonest person. I'm pretty sure that's the reason they instituted the whole bar code thing to begin with (that procedure's less than a year old) - so that you can't get in with an invalid recommend, or one that's been lost or stolen.
Edit: Or, what Kat and Senoj said.
quote:Is it a requirement to keep them on you? Because it seems like this would be an important document you would want to keep in a safe place unless you needed it.
No, but many people keep them in their wallets. I would think this is true even more so in Utah, where there are temples really close by and you could just go in before or after work without making a major trip of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It is an option I expect to be exercised in my lifetime.
I expect to see that around the same time that women are given the priesthood and homosexual marriages are performed in the temple, both of which some people have been predicting for a long time.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
MattP, there are a few things that are specifically not ever going to be talked about outside the temple. Other things are at the discretion of the member - some people won't talk about it at all, just to be safe. Some will talk about it in the right setting and if they know the audience is respectful. I can't imagine talking about it on the internet, though. So you may have to actually talk to a Mormon if you have questions about the temple.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So you may have to actually talk to a Mormon if you have questions about the temple.
I live in Provo, UT. Most of my friends and family are Mormon. No one has any clue what they can or can't talk about so they talk about nothing and refer me to the official statements which only paint things in broad swaths which don't address many of my questions; nevermind the questions that are likely to be raised by the answers to those.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If the barcodes have only existed for 2 years, then it's easy. This is a flashback to 7 years ago.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:MattP, there are a few things that are specifically not ever going to be talked about outside the temple.
It seems possible that the church might eventually decide that the lesser of two evils is transparency, when the alternative is misrepresentation or misunderstanding on an unprecedented scale. The ease of accessing what non-Mormons want to say about what happens in the temple has risen drastically, while LDS remain mum (which in turn only tends to pique the curiosity of others who then go looking for the information that IS available all the more). Do you think the principle you're describing will always override such concerns?
(In fact, hasn't at least one government required the details of temple ceremonies before a temple was allowed to commence operations? Google is failing me here. My possibly-incorrect memory is that the response was to provide the requested details, with a plea to avoid needless publicity, because other concerns can override the importance of not disclosing the details outside the temple.) EDIT: I can find zero corroboration for this half-memory so I starting to think I'm wrong.
[ March 16, 2009, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: scifibum ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There is only one recommend, and you show it as you walk in. For two people to get in on the same recommend, the person on the inside has to pass it to the person on the outside. I don't think that's possible without getting seriously squirrelly concerning exploring the temple and finding a back door somewhere. I mean, I'm sure there are emergency exits and things, but generally everyone goes in and out the same place. You can't just hand it over.
I didn't see the show, but this sort of locked-room mystery type stuff always intrigues me. Couldn't Barb have gone in with someone else by using the recommend document, then have the other person leave the temple and take the recommend back out [if it were in a purse or something, the other party might not even know what he or she was transporting] to her sister for the sister to [re]use? Or is it scanned on the way out to document exit (so that you'd have two entries without an intervening documented exit)?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If the barcodes have only existed for 2 years, then it's easy. This is a flashback to 7 years ago.
Ah. Well, that would make more sense.
Still not interested in watching the episode, though. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:So you may have to actually talk to a Mormon if you have questions about the temple.
I live in Provo, UT. Most of my friends and family are Mormon. No one has any clue what they can or can't talk about so they talk about nothing and refer me to the official statements which only paint things in broad swaths which don't address many of my questions; nevermind the questions that are likely to be raised by the answers to those.
I'll tell you this much. We make a promise not to talk about what goes on in the Temple. Perhaps you should care more that those who have visited the temple are not breaking promises and damaging their integrity to satisfy your curiosity. And I honestly think that the desire to have us do so is quite selfish.
The purpose for that promise, I think, is fairly simple. Each person's experiences in the temple will teach them something different. What each person learns helps them to understand the nature of God and the purpose of the Gospel and any insights they gain should only be applied to their own lives, not to the lives of others.
The insights I've gained from the temple have helped me progress on my own path and sharing those insights would do nothing to help anyone else.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There is only one recommend, and you show it as you walk in. For two people to get in on the same recommend, the person on the inside has to pass it to the person on the outside. I don't think that's possible without getting seriously squirrelly concerning exploring the temple and finding a back door somewhere. I mean, I'm sure there are emergency exits and things, but generally everyone goes in and out the same place. You can't just hand it over.
I didn't see the show, but this sort of locked-room mystery type stuff always intrigues me. Couldn't Barb have gone in with someone else by using the recommend document, then have the other person leave the temple and take the recommend back out [if it were in a purse or something, the other party might not even know what he or she was transporting] to her sister for that person to use? Or is it scanned on the way out to document exit (so that you'd have two entries without an intervening documented exit)?
Pretty sure a person wishing to get in with another person's recommend would find very little in the way of resistance on the part of temple staff. Your method of getting two people in would most likely work without any difficulty. There is no scanning process for those exiting, in fact the computer scanning them in simply says, "Welcome brother/sister Smith."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sadly, those who automatically trust are the easiest to take advantage of. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Sadly, those who automatically trust are the easiest to take advantage of.
I think it's more the temple is a friendly environment where only the best of feelings should exist. Were they to vamp up security it would only reinforce people's belief that it's a scary cult place where brainwashing occurs.
The only real obstacle to getting a recommend is typically the interview process.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I'll tell you this much. We make a promise not to talk about what goes on in the Temple. Perhaps you should care more that those who have visited the temple are not breaking promises and damaging their integrity to satisfy your curiosity. And I honestly think that the desire to have us do so is quite selfish.
MattP should be less curious because it's sworn secrecy instead of some other kind? He didn't say he bribes and threatens people into breaking their promises, btw.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Perhaps you should care more that those who have visited the temple are not breaking promises and damaging their integrity to satisfy your curiosity.
I expressed interest in the church being more open about this subject - not in individual members violating their covenants to satisfy my curiosity. It was another poster, a member of the church, who suggested talking to members.
Perhaps you should pay closer attention to what I've said before speculating about how much I should care about such things or what my motivations are.
But if we want to talk motivation, here's mine: My wife is LDS. I am not. She has not attended the temple but thinks she may some day. Should she ever do so, it will be the first time that either of us explicitly entered into an agreement with a 3rd party to keep something substantive from the other. In attempting to reconcile her desire to participate fully in her faith and our mutual desire to keep nothing from each other, I've become interested in increased transparency in this area.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I'm one of those who is a little more comfortable discussing the Temple. Not that I would ever give any descriptions or quotations, but I think too many Mormons are uncomfortable talking about it at all. It depends on the questions. To understand where I come from with this, I am a Hugh Nibley and Joseph Campbell fan. My suggestion would be reading "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," and "Temple and the Cosmos," by Hugh Nibley, and "The Gate of Heaven" by Matthew B. Brown. They are heavy reading, but are very helpful in getting closer to understand the meaning of an LDS Temple experience.
Preparing for the actual experience is a little harder to manage. That seems to be where the crux of the problems come from. We live in a society where the only understanding of physical symbolism anymore is words.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It is an option I expect to be exercised in my lifetime.
I expect to see that around the same time that women are given the priesthood and homosexual marriages are performed in the temple, both of which some people have been predicting for a long time.
Those predictions are far less likely than the mormon church opting to drop the secrecy of their temple ceremonies. I don't find them equivalent at all.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not sure what you mean by drop the secrecy. If you mean presenting to the public an example of what goes on, that might be likely although doubtful. If you mean allow the Temple to be open for observation by outsiders? The nature of the Temple activities is a very positive never.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: But if we want to talk motivation, here's mine: My wife is LDS. I am not. She has not attended the temple but thinks she may some day. Should she ever do so, it will be the first time that either of us explicitly entered into an agreement with a 3rd party to keep something substantive from the other. In attempting to reconcile her desire to participate fully in her faith and our mutual desire to keep nothing from each other, I've become interested in increased transparency in this area.
I would contend that there is still a good deal of selfishness in your motivations. At least, from my own perspective. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am not sure what you mean by drop the secrecy. If you mean presenting to the public an example of what goes on, that might be likely although doubtful. If you mean allow the Temple to be open for observation by outsiders? The nature of the Temple activities is a very positive never.
Once upon a time, the nature of the LDS's teachings and standpoint on blacks rendered giving blacks the priesthood 'a very positive never.'
Religions change. The LDS has changed in response to pressing social issues. It's changed very dramatically, in fact. Dropping the secrecy of temple activities would be light in comparison with, say, renouncing and reversing the acceptability and appropriateness of plural marriage, or switching its position on the acceptability of blacks holding the priesthood.
One of the things I'm nearly positive they will find themselves compelled to change is letting non-mormon relatives attend mormon weddings, which is, in many people's opinion, unnecessarily divisive and excluding. You could expect that to change first, and it would open the door as a precedent to further inclusiveness.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: If the barcodes have only existed for 2 years, then it's easy. This is a flashback to 7 years ago.
Huh? That scene was not a flashback.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would contend that there is still a good deal of selfishness in your motivations. At least, from my own perspective.
Think what you will. I've already explained that I wasn't asking what you seemed to think I was asking.
I would like the church to be more open. I do not want people to break their covenants. That's it.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Ah. Valentine beat me to it. Yes -- that scene clearly takes place in the present....
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm one of those who is a little more comfortable discussing the Temple. Not that I would ever give any descriptions or quotations, but I think too many Mormons are uncomfortable talking about it at all.
I'm the same way. I was surprised the first time I went, how much of it is NOT superseded with "don't ever tell anyone about this."
I think in a situation with a wife who was going and a husband who was not, the most important thing to know would be the covenants she was going to make when she's there. And as far as I understand, there's nothing keeping us from discussing those covenants in the proper setting. There are still a lot of Mormons who won't, though - just out of carefulness, I guess.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"One of the things I'm nearly positive they will find themselves compelled to change is letting non-mormon relatives attend mormon weddings"
Never going to change. In this instance it wouldn't be about what goes on, but where it takes place. The Temple is considered Holy. Forgive me, but that means no unclean thing is permitted to enter. In Mormon speak, that means anyone who is not a member in good standing.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
So has it occurred to anyone that the leaders of the church have been through the temple and made the same promises, and that by opening the whole temple up to the public they would be breaking those promises?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In Mormon speak, that means anyone who is not a member in good standing.
Or they may come to recognize that the occasional dishonest member that is deemed "worthy" based on false statements to their bishop/stake pres. already represent an introduction of unclean things which will not be substantially compounded by permitting attendance by earnest family members. Heck, I know a couple people that attend the temple with some regularity who are privately atheists who go only to keep up appearances.
[ March 16, 2009, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "One of the things I'm nearly positive they will find themselves compelled to change is letting non-mormon relatives attend mormon weddings"
Never going to change. In this instance it wouldn't be about what goes on, but where it takes place. The Temple is considered Holy. Forgive me, but that means no unclean thing is permitted to enter. In Mormon speak, that means anyone who is not a member in good standing.
First, I don't believe your appraisal of 'never.' Same point as above; pity those confident enough to speak of such things in absolutes.
Second, the insular connotations, the secrecy, the notion of the non-members as 'unclean' not worthy to see or know what happens within, are all those things that fan the flames of those who like to paint the LDS with terms they reliably balk at, such as to say that the organization is controlling, or cultish, and thus my prediction that such things will be eased as the church tries to gain acceptance and understanding.
Third, plenty among the 'unclean' are permitted entry, necessarily, to these locations. I cannot imagine that Mormons have somehow earned the assured immunity of their buildings from entry by police, firemen, paramedics, federal agents, and various inspectors. If a murder takes place in a mormon temple, do you imagine that there are promises being broken and cause for High Outrage among the faithful if the crime scene detectives are allowed in to document the scene, and they are not Mormon? Do they not accept the validity of this allowance?
Fourth, plenty of non-mormons go to the temples and it's foolish to assume that the locations dutifully remain free of 'unclean' presences.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: So has it occurred to anyone that the leaders of the church have been through the temple and made the same promises, and that by opening the whole temple up to the public they would be breaking those promises?
Related to the above point, if the leader of a church unlocks the door to let in a non-mormon police team inside to document a crime scene within the temple, is he 'breaking those promises?' Does he have to bar the doors and resist as long as possible to stay faithful to these promises?
Or have they necessarily accepted the prospect that non-mormons must sometimes be let in, to sully the carpets with their 'unclean' feet?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Samp, to your third point, they'd cleanse the temple, so to speak, by re-consecrating it after that happened.
To your fourth point, well, they try to prevent it. (But MattP is right in that members fib and get in sometimes.)
Boris, what if such a change came about as inspired/revealed change of direction? Wouldn't that supersede any promises already made?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Or they may come to recognize that the occasional dishonest member that is deemed "worthy" based on false given statements to their bishop/stake pres. already represent an introduction of unclean things which will not be substantially compounded by permitting attendance by earnest family members.
We have a hard enough time judging the sincerity of people who supposedly believe the way we do, and who say they respect the ordinances of the temple; you think we can judge the sincerity of the sympathy of those who don't believe our church is true?
quote:First, I don't believe your appraisal of 'never.' Same point as above; pity those confident enough to speak of such things in absolutes.
Never is a very big word, yes.
"Highly unlikely with our present understanding of the gospel," however, more accurately fits the situation.
quote:Second, the insular connotations, the secrecy, the notion of the non-members as 'unclean' not worthy to see or know what happens within, are all those things that fan the flames of those who like to paint the LDS with terms they reliably balk at, such as to say that the organization is controlling, or cultish, and thus my prediction that such things will be eased as the church tries to gain acceptance and understanding
The Church is growing, and grew even when it was more insular than it is now.
As far as controlling and cultish: meh. People say the same thing about all religions, even those that don't have secret (or sacred) rites. My grandmother is uncomfortable with Baptists (she's Methodist) for generally the same thing.
It's inaccurate to say that we consider non-members "unclean." "Uninitiated" might be a better word.
quote:plenty among the 'unclean' are permitted entry, necessarily, to these locations. I cannot imagine that Mormons have somehow earned the assured immunity of their buildings from entry by police, firemen, paramedics, federal agents, and various inspectors.
Sure. When we can, we try to have an understanding with those agencies so that Mormon representatives are the ones who are doing the necessary work. Where that's not possible, it may be necessary to rededicate the Temple after the emergency is over. (I don't have hard numbers on this; someone correct me if I'm wrong)
quote: plenty of non-mormons go to the temples and it's foolish to assume that the locations dutifully remain free of 'unclean' presences.
Yep; the DC Temple, for example, has a Festival of Lights every year that's well attended by the general public. But you've misunderstood (with Occasional's assistance) the Mormon attitude toward non-members.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... letting non-mormon relatives attend mormon weddings, which is, in many people's opinion, unnecessarily divisive and excluding.
Really? Weird.
How do people normally deal with this when they marry outside the faith? Do they only have a secular wedding? Or what if they convert to marry into the faith? Do they have two weddings? One for the Mormon-side and one for the relatives?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How do people normally deal with this when they marry outside the faith? Do they only have a secular wedding?
Bishops (local leaders of Mormon congregations) can perform legal marriages, and often do when members marry non-members. The marriages, as far as I know, can take place in the congregation's chapel, or anywhere the couple feels comfortable.
EDIT: Or, the couple can just have a judge marry them, or another minister, or whatever they want. There are no explicit restrictions on this specific topic; that said, Mormons are definitely encouraged to marry within the faith.
quote:Or what if they convert to marry into the faith? Do they have two weddings? One for the Mormon-side and one for the relatives?
It depends on the couple, really. Some couples choose to have a ring ceremony after their temple wedding that is very much like any wedding you might see in any other church.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's inaccurate to say that we consider non-members "unclean."
If it's inaccurate, it is an innacuracy that results from repeating Occasional's very distinct declaration about what he considers non-members.
He's not the first I've heard the term from, either. If he's wrong (not something I lack suspicion of) where does he get the sentiment of uncleanliness from?
Occasional, was this something you were taught by the church, or that you more or less made for yourself in remiss of the church's actual stance?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It depends on the couple, really. Some couples choose to have a ring ceremony after their temple wedding that is very much like any wedding you might see in any other church.
The church has some guidelines for how this should be handled, with a slant toward there being no mistake that the "real" wedding occurs at the temple. For instance, they do not permit a temple sealing to occur immediately after a conventional wedding ceremony if the ceremony results in a legal marriage. In such a case there is a six-month waiting period before the temple sealing is permitted.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Samp, to your third point, they'd cleanse the temple, so to speak, by re-consecrating it after that happened.
To your fourth point, well, they try to prevent it. (But MattP is right in that members fib and get in sometimes.)
Boris, what if such a change came about as inspired/revealed change of direction? Wouldn't that supersede any promises already made?
Such a change would effectively destroy the entire purpose of the temple's existence. It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
As for the crime scene, police would be allowed inside the temple, but if a crime were to occur in the temple, said police would not be able to see any of the temple ceremony for the simple fact that the temple would most likely be closed to anyone *but* the police. Depending on the nature of the crime, the temple would probably need to be re-dedicated after all investigation was complete.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Such a change would effectively destroy the entire purpose of the temple's existence. It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
Why? When non-mormons enter a mormon temple, do they become possessed by the uncontrollable desire to make noise and disrupt the events within?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
Funny, I've been in plenty of chapels and churches that are places of quiet meditation and reflection without keeping non-members out.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Funny, I've been in plenty of chapels and churches that are places of quiet meditation and reflection without keeping non-members out.
That's what I was thinking. I've been to more Sacrament meetings and baptisms than I can remember. I've never seen anyone be anything but respectful.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Can you name one that is "not for general public viewing," to the extent that an LDS temple wedding is?
The ka'aba? The inner sanctuary of a Shinto shrine?
quote:One of the reasons that the da vinci code was so popular was that it came out at a time when many already believed the catholic church was corrupt. I'm not sure it convinced more then a few that the church was corrupt, because its audience had believed that prior to reading the book or seeing the movie.
You're assuming that everyone who watched the movie was familiar with Christianity. I ran into people in Japan all the time who said, "Oh, you're Christians? I just watched The DaVinci Code and I know all about what really goes on in Christian churches." Thanks, Dan Brown. Thanks for teaching the rest of the world what Christianity is really like with the "thrilling" nonsense you made up just to sell books.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R and MattP:
Hmmm, interesting.
Scott, in the former situation you mentioned that the wedding can take place in the congregation's chapel. I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Is the chapel usually in the same building as the temple with some form of firewall to keep outsiders out or are they two separate facilities or...?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's literally a wall of fire that only burns those without a recommend. But they just started putting them in a couple months ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if not every Temple has one yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Such a change would effectively destroy the entire purpose of the temple's existence. It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
Why? When non-mormons enter a mormon temple, do they become possessed by the uncontrollable desire to make noise and disrupt the events within?
I think these days many Mormons feel that certain nonmembers have been seized with an uncontrollable desire to make light of temple ceremonies.
From my experience with visiting Buddhist temples, nonbelievers can be absolutely horrifying in their abject irreverence of other people's sacred sites.
[ March 16, 2009, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The reasons non-members are not allowed into LDS temples is simple. It's not because they're noisy or unclean or disrespectful - in fact, the church encourages as many as possible to come tour a temple before it's in operation during Open Houses, in the attempt to break down the "secrecy" and be as open as our covenants allow us to be.
The reason you're not "allowed" in without a recommend is because there are not spectator areas - when you're in the temple, you're participating in the ordinances. To participate in an Endowment is to make very sacred covenants for yourself (or to renew those same covenants when you go again and participate on behalf of the deceased.) before God. It's the same reason new converts have to wait a year before they can receive their own endowments - church leaders don't want people to make very serious and binding promises to God that they're not prepared to keep.
What are those promises? I won't spell them out exactly here, but they are not anything extraneous to normal Christian values. They are all contained in and come, word-for-word, out of our scriptures.
One of the coolest experiences I had was teaching the missionary lessons to Jo San, a Chinese engineering student that I met in Japan. She was very interested in church and loved meeting with us and reading about our teachings of God. After we had met with her for a while, we taught her about the principle of baptism, which is the first covenant (sacred promise) made by a member of the LDS church. I explained that a covenant like baptism is a promise with God - you promise to do certain things and He promises certain blessings. I showed her the example in Mosiah 18:8-10 of the specific things the people of Alma promised to do as part of their baptismal covenants and the promises they expected from God in return. I asked Jo San if she would be willing to make the covenant of baptism and become a member of the Lord's church.
She told me no. She hurried to add - "I understand the seriousness of making a promise to God. I am trying to follow the commandments you have taught me, but I don't think I'm ready yet to promise that I won't drink alcohol or tea. I could give it up myself, but there's so many social situations with my teachers and my boss where I can't say no when they offer it. I don't want to make a promise to God until I know that I will keep it."
That was the best reason I'd ever heard for someone not wanting to be baptized. I don't worry for Jo San, because even though she hasn't joined the church, I know she understands the truth and gravity of it and I know she will find the courage to do what is right in her life.
Just as I wouldn't want her to make a covenant she wasn't prepared to keep, I wouldn't want to bring any of my friends and family who weren't ready to live up to the standards that temple covenants involved to come take part in a temple ceremony, even though they might want to witness a marriage or even though they might be curious about what goes on.
I don't doubt that a revelation from the prophet could change the way that the church handles access to the temple, but I don't think that it's worthwhile to speculate about when they're going to "drop the curtain of secrecy"or cave in to social pressure. The covenants are very sacred, and we do the best we can to explain them without inviting you to come take a tour, and I can say very confidently that those policies are not going to change drastically at any forseeable future time.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Scott, in the former situation you mentioned that the wedding can take place in the congregation's chapel. I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Is the chapel usually in the same building as the temple with some form of firewall to keep outsiders out or are they two separate facilities or...?
Chapels and temples are different buildings for different purposes. Chapels are where we have our normal weekly Sunday worship services, weekday activities, Easter egg hunts and basketball games and the like. Anyone can enter. There are weddings held there sometimes, for members marrying non-members or who for whatever reason can't or don't want to go to the temple. They can invite whomever they want to those weddings.
Temples are special places for specific ordinances. They're not even open on Sundays, there are no regular worship services in them. One of the ordinances performed in the temple is marriage. A couple can only be married in the temple if both are members and are worthy (according to their answers to the temple recommend interview). The benefit to marrying there is that the marriage is sealed for time and all eternity, instead of for time only - "until death do us part".
In temple weddings, only adult members who have current temple recommends can attend the wedding. I was married there; my parents attended, but my younger sister who was just 17 did not. We later had a reception at the local chapel to which we invited all our friends and family.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Funny, I've been in plenty of chapels and churches that are places of quiet meditation and reflection without keeping non-members out.
This is true, but the temple is more than just a place for meditation. Our chapels are open to the public, and though they're not much to look at compared with some of the beautiful cathedrals and other Christian churches, anyone is welcome, and the times that I have seen friends and visitors they've always been very respectful.
But the temple is more than just a quiet place to come sit and ponder.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Mucus- temples and chapels are separate buildings. There are less then 200 temples, but tons and tons of chapels. Temples have to be built special and dedicated by the apostles.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: From my experience with visiting Buddhist temples, nonbelievers can be absolutely horrifying in their abject irreverence of other people's sacred sites.
Indeed.
(Although we probably have different thresholds for what level of activity constitutes horrifying, there is definitely behaviour that surpasses both of them)
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: ... In temple weddings, only adult members who have current temple recommends can attend the wedding. I was married there; my parents attended, but my younger sister who was just 17 did not. We later had a reception at the local chapel to which we invited all our friends and family.
Thanks for the explanation.
Actually, that brings up one wrinkle that I forgot about. I guess its not just non-Mormons that can't attend a temple wedding, its all people without a recommend. Typically, what percentage of Mormons would have a recommend?
Annie: Hmmm, point of curiosity. Was Jo San Cantonese?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Indeed.
(Although we probably have different thresholds for what level of activity constitutes horrifying, there is definitely behaviour that surpasses both of them)
Probably true.
quote:Annie: Hmmm, point of curiosity. Was Jo San Cantonese?
It would be hilarious if she was. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The reasons non-members are not allowed into LDS temples is simple. It's not because they're noisy or unclean or disrespectful - in fact, the church encourages as many as possible to come tour a temple before it's in operation during Open Houses, in the attempt to break down the "secrecy" and be as open as our covenants allow us to be.
For starters, if it's not about them being improper for attendance ('unclean' in Occasional's parlance) then what's the point of a purification in the event of corruption by the presence of a non-believer?
The answer, which I could have guessed without detail on the ceremonies and traditions of the temples, is that it is manifestly about more than just protecting people from taking part in ordinances, which you are putting forth as the only reason I'm not allowed in, or to be told the content of the activities within. :/
Also, why are 'secrecy' and 'allowed' in quote brackets? Are you at odds with their non-ambiguous connotation?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Boris: It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
Funny, I've been in plenty of chapels and churches that are places of quiet meditation and reflection without keeping non-members out.
Heh. You've not been in a temple. The level of peace and quiet that exists in the Temple is an order of magnitude greater than exists in any other place I've ever been.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The reasons non-members are not allowed into LDS temples is simple. It's not because they're noisy or unclean or disrespectful - in fact, the church encourages as many as possible to come tour a temple before it's in operation during Open Houses, in the attempt to break down the "secrecy" and be as open as our covenants allow us to be.
For starters, if it's not about them being improper for attendance ('unclean' in Occasional's parlance) then what's the point of a purification in the event of corruption by the presence of a non-believer?
The answer, which I could have guessed without detail on the ceremonies and traditions of the temples, is that it is manifestly about more than just protecting people from taking part in ordinances, which you are putting forth as the only reason I'm not allowed in, or to be told the content of the activities within. :/
Also, why are 'secrecy' and 'allowed' in quote brackets? Are you at odds with their non-ambiguous connotation?
Well, the senerios you set up for legitimate reasons for non-believers to enter the temple were pretty extreme. If there was a crime committed in the temple it would need to be rededicated because of the crime, not because of the non-Mormon policeman investigating the crime. If there was a fire, there would probably need to be a major remodel, which would require a rededication. Nothing to do with the non-Mormon fireman.
I work for an art glass company. We are doing the windows for the remodel of the Laie Temple right now. As you can see, the temple will be rededicated following renovations.
If someone lies in their interview or steals a recommend or otherwise enters temple unworthily, they will be in trouble with the church,* but the temple itself will not need to be rededicated. I don't think.
*I kind of hesitated to put it that way. After all, what can the church do to you other than express strong disapproval and take your recommend away? The weirdest question I was ever asked about Mormonism was, "If you left the church, would you be worried about the Mormon mafia coming to get you?" For the record, there is no Mormon mafia.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The scenarios I set up are brought forth simply to demonstrate that the church already has reasons to allow non-believers into the temples, as well as to demonstrate common-sense examples of when the church leadership would have to say 'well, I mean, of course we would let non-believers in, in the event of X'
The scenarios posited are also not extreme in the sense that over time they become more than likely. Nearly assured, even. I'm pretty sure that the odds are .. I don't know, fifty fifty? .. that non-mormon paramedics have been granted access due to a medical emergency, or that non-mormon officials have had to make an official code inspection of some sort.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The regular chapels where we worship on Sunday look almost like schools. There's very little adornment. Sacrament meeting itself, because of the many children who attend, can be quite informal, other than during the passing of the Sacrament, which is a time of particular reverence. Ordinary members give almost all the talks. The little kids usually have food, books, crayons, and things with the idea that they can quietly play while the meeting is going on. The effect can sometimes be that of a subdued nursery riot, and it's occasionally difficult to hear the speaker over all the kids. I especially liked that about LDS services before I joined. Everyone's really gentle and indulgent of the children. They're being taught to be quiet, but the whole process is rather noisy overall. The fact that we don't sequester kids from the congregation during regular services was very nice to me. I just liked the feel of the place.
So be assured that you're welcome to come to Sacrament meeting on Sunday. The congregation wears Sunday best, as do many churches, and not relaxed weekend casual, as do many others. Meetings usually begin at 9am, but where there are multiple wards meeting in the same building, they might begin at 1 pm with a different congregation, or other times as is expedient. You'll have to ask someone to be sure when.
Stay for Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society if you want. People will LOVE for you to visit. But if you'd rather cut out after Sacrament Meeting, that's okay too.
The temple is for later on. Rest assured that you are welcome there as well, when you meet the qualifications. Every endowed member will be delighted to encourage you and help you meet those qualifications to attend. There's nothing the Saints love more than reaching out to their neighbors to share the blessings of the restored gospel.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The scenarios I set up are brought forth simply to demonstrate that the church already has reasons to allow non-believers into the temples, as well as to demonstrate common-sense examples of when the church leadership would have to say 'well, I mean, of course we would let non-believers in, in the event of X'
The scenarios posited are also not extreme in the sense that over time they become more than likely. Nearly assured, even. I'm pretty sure that the odds are .. I don't know, fifty fifty? .. that non-mormon paramedics have been granted access due to a medical emergency, or that non-mormon officials have had to make an official code inspection of some sort.
OK. It seems I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I was thinking along the lines of murder and major fires (which I still think would be pretty extreme) rather than paramedics and heart attacks.
Now I am wondering how the temples handle surprise fire code checks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Maybe they work out some kind of a deal.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:Heh. You've not been in a temple. The level of peace and quiet that exists in the Temple is an order of magnitude greater than exists in any other place I've ever been.
Boris, to be fair, just as dkw isn't qualified to discuss how being in an LDS temple feels, you have no idea what she has or has not experienced and how it may or may not compare to a temple.
For my part, I've been in several places that I felt to be at least as peaceful and quiet as an LDS temple.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... letting non-mormon relatives attend mormon weddings, which is, in many people's opinion, unnecessarily divisive and excluding.
Really? Weird.
How do people normally deal with this when they marry outside the faith? Do they only have a secular wedding? Or what if they convert to marry into the faith? Do they have two weddings? One for the Mormon-side and one for the relatives?
I know that the thread has moved on from this topic since this was posted, but I felt the need to add.
I don't understand, Mucus, how holding two weddings due to people of other faith attending a faith-based marriage is weird to you? Perhaps that's because it doesn't seem weird to me since that's exactly what my husband and I will be doing.
To clarify, my husband and I were legally married 4 years ago. Both of our immediate families attended, but none of them are the same religion that we are. My DH and I are Wiccan and in our particular flavor of Wicca a handfasting (as well as all ceremonies) is both a secret and a sacred rite that should only be attended by those of the same faith. So this year we will hold a handfasting ceremony that only those in our circle (and our child, who is dedicated, but too young to be initiated) will be welcome to attend.
There is a big difference between committing yourself to another person in a way that is legal and is on paper and committing yourself to another person in front of your God. One is entirely holy, the other gives you a tax break. I do understand that most people join them, however, I see that as a convenience.
(edit to limit the insane amount of commas)
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
I have thought for awhile about posting my opinion on Sunday's episode of Big Love as I'd lurked on this thread all of last week. I know that I'm not LDS or Mormon, but I know that some people here were irritated with Big Love's producers and staff at making the Temple ceremony part of the show.
The impression (although I see that they are incorrect) that my husband and I got from the events leading up to the Temple ceremony were that Barb was worried about being separated from her family in the afterlife. I thought that the way it was presented was beautiful and if it doesn't actually happen that way or for those reasons, I am disappointed. I do not actually know any Mormons (in person) or anybody who is LDS to discuss what I did see or what misconceptions that I did get from it.
I suppose that this isn't really contributing to the conversation at hand, but I think I wanted to tell the few people that I do know do follow beliefs anything like what I saw that I thought that it did seem beautiful in it's sacredness and that I hope that you cherish the sacrements that are real and you do take. If that made sense at all. Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I have to agree with you, Bella, the scene was quite beautiful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Ah. Valentine beat me to it. Yes -- that scene clearly takes place in the present....
But I saw it on teh internets!!!!1
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's nothing the Saints love more than reaching out to their neighbors to share the blessings of the restored gospel.
And after that, basketball.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was going to say, "Except basketball."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Men. You could also subsitute "Except scrapbooking."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't like scrapbooking or basketball.
I am truly a peculiar person among a peculiar people.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Not that peculiar. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, but I've also got the Implacable Engine of Ultimate Destruction in my basement.
I'm more peculiar than you.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't like scrapbooking or basketball.
I am truly a peculiar person among a peculiar people.
That's nothing. I dislike both scrapbooking and basketball, I can't eat anything with wheat in it, and I think republican politics are a moral outrage. Plus I'm a woman with a Ph.D. in Engineering and unable to have children.
You aren't even one standard deviaion off the mean.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have been chastised by both Mormons and non-Mormons for using the word "unclean" in relation to why others can't enter the Temple. I suppose my understanding of what "Holy" means could be different than others. However, I used a very specific Biblical word for who and what can and cannot enter a Holy Temple. It is not that unusual to say this:
quote:Occasionally, someone will want to know why you have to have a temple recommend to get in the temple. The following thoughts may help you answer the question:
... one of [the reasons is] recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 109:20: “No unclean [unworthy] thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it.”
This and similar verses place a commandment upon those who are administratively responsible to safeguard the temples that no unclean thing should enter. Thus, the temple recommend not only serves as a safeguard for the person seeking admission to the temple but also serves to allow those who have responsibility for guarding the gateway to the temple to discharge their duty and to fulfill their covenants. A stake president or a bishop who knowingly or negligently allows someone who is unclean to enter the house of the Lord is accountable for that disobedience. Similarly, an individual seeking to gain admission to the temple who lies or withholds important information during the interview process likewise is held accountable. - Cree-L Kofford, “Marriage in the Lord’s Way, Part Two,” Ensign, Jul 1998, 15
quote:“In one of the early revelations in this dispensation, it was made known by the Lord that it was His will that a holy House should be built with the promise that His glory would rest upon it and His presence would be here and He would come into it, and all the pure in heart that should come into it should see God on one condition. That condition was that they ‘do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled.’ ([D&C] 97:15–16.) Obedient to that instruction these holy temples are carefully safeguarded, not because of the necessity of secrecy but because of the sacredness of the work performed therein, by forbidding those who by the measure of the Lord’s standards may be considered ‘unclean’ in that they do not keep His commandments.”13
“The ordinances [of the temple] are not deep, dark secrets to be kept as such from the world. … The basic idea of the ordinances from Moses back to Adam is separation from the world. The endowment represents steps by which one disengages from a corrupt, secular, imprisoned environment. …
“… The important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated. … For my covenants are all between me and my Heavenly Father.”14
“We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. But it was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience. …
“The ordinances and ceremonies of the temple are simple. They are beautiful. They are sacred. They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared. Curiosity is not a preparation. Deep interest itself is not a preparation. Preparation for the ordinances includes preliminary steps: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, worthiness, a maturity and dignity worthy of one who comes invited as a guest into the house of the Lord.”15 - “Why Symbols?,” Ensign, Feb 2007, 12–17
One of the great talks on the Temple was by LDS Prophet Howard W. Hunter about the Temple as a symbol of LDS Church membership. Again, the Doctrine and Covenants is quoted:
quote:Let us consider some of the promises connected to the temple that the Lord has given us. Consider the lifestyle we must live in order to be beneficiaries of these promises:
“And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;
“Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God.
“But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples.
“And, now, behold, if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible.
“And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say: Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out of her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there;
“And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.
“Therefore, verily, thus saith the Lord, let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart; therefore, let Zion rejoice” (D&C 97:15–21).
What promises to us as a people! What a symbol for us—as individuals, as families, and as a people—to be known before the Lord as the pure in heart!
I didn't just get my ideas out of nowhere. It may not be political, but the notion of "unclean" and "Holy" is Scriptural.
I would like to add Elder Russell M. Nelson's talk Personal Preperation for Temple Blessings to help as an explanation. Another great talk is Keeping the Temple Holy by President Gordon B. Hinckley when he was First Counselor in the First Presidency about Temple recommends.
[ March 17, 2009, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't like scrapbooking or basketball.
I am truly a peculiar person among a peculiar people.
That's nothing. I dislike both scrapbooking and basketball, I can't eat anything with wheat in it, and I think republican politics are a moral outrage. Plus I'm a woman with a Ph.D. in Engineering and unable to have children.
You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
If you disliked jello you could say you were on the high road to apostasy.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Occasional-
In both the Cree-L Crawford and the Gordon Hinckly articles they refer to two different requirements for entering the temple. One is cleanliness, the other maturity or faith. You can see this duality in the recommend questions themselves, as half focus on acceptance of basic tenets of the faith, and half focus on behaviors that would make one "unclean." To use the term unclean or unworthy to refer to those (such as non-Mormons, or baptized members who are not yet eligible for a recommend) is incorrect and obscures much of the reason why recommends are required for the temple.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BelladonnaOrchid: I have thought for awhile about posting my opinion on Sunday's episode of Big Love as I'd lurked on this thread all of last week. I know that I'm not LDS or Mormon, but I know that some people here were irritated with Big Love's producers and staff at making the Temple ceremony part of the show.
The impression (although I see that they are incorrect) that my husband and I got from the events leading up to the Temple ceremony were that Barb was worried about being separated from her family in the afterlife. I thought that the way it was presented was beautiful and if it doesn't actually happen that way or for those reasons, I am disappointed. I do not actually know any Mormons (in person) or anybody who is LDS to discuss what I did see or what misconceptions that I did get from it.
I suppose that this isn't really contributing to the conversation at hand, but I think I wanted to tell the few people that I do know do follow beliefs anything like what I saw that I thought that it did seem beautiful in it's sacredness and that I hope that you cherish the sacrements that are real and you do take. If that made sense at all.
Thanks Bella! I appreciate hearing about your impressions. The overall impressions you had are very accurate even if many of the details in the show were not. I'm very pleased to hear that the show was actually able to portray the right feeling (at least to you) about the temple even if it didn't get everything right.
I wonder how much the sense of sacredness which you bring from your own religion helps in appreciating the sacredness of the temples within the LDS church. I've found that often people who are disturbed by the secrecy surrounding the LDS temple, don't appreciate sacredness in general.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Occasional:
Those talks, including the verses in D&C, were directed at members, about members. Non-members are not mentioned, because of the tacit expectation that they won't be allowed in anyway-- not because they are unclean, but because they are untested in the faith that is necessary to prepare one's mind for a temple experience.
It's because they're uninitiated.
If it were about being holy, then the perfect time to enter the temple would be directly after baptism. But from the talk by Pres. Hinckley:
quote:I fear that some people are granted temple recommends before they are really prepared for them. I feel that sometimes we unduly rush people to the temple. Converts and those who have recently come into activity need a substantial measure of maturity in the Church. They need understanding of the grand concepts of the eternal gospel. They need to have demonstrated over a period of time their capacity to discipline their lives in such a way as to be worthy to enter the House of the Lord, for the obligations there assumed are eternal. For this reason, many years ago the First Presidency determined that a convert to the Church should wait a year following baptism before going to the House of the Lord. It was the expectation that during that year he or she would have grown in understanding, as well as in capacity to exercise that measure of self-discipline which would result in personal worthiness.
quote:You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
Please-- this from a Utahn?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't like scrapbooking or basketball.
I am truly a peculiar person among a peculiar people.
That's nothing. I dislike both scrapbooking and basketball, I can't eat anything with wheat in it, and I think republican politics are a moral outrage. Plus I'm a woman with a Ph.D. in Engineering and unable to have children.
You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
If you disliked jello you could say you were on the high road to apostasy.
Then I guess its a good thing that I like jello. I rarely eat jello any more but I still have very fond memories of Jello salads from my childhood and eat them with delight when they are served.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
Please-- this from a Utahn?
Utahn????
I live in Trinidad and Tobago.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Republicans are a moral outrage about 60% of the time
That's awesome, since human beings, in general, are a moral outrage at least 70% of the time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
Please-- this from a Utahn?
Utahn????
I live in Trinidad and Tobago.
Don't be coy. You moved there from SLC, neh?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Republicans are a moral outrage about 60% of the time
That's awesome, since human beings, in general, are a moral outrage at least 70% of the time.
I was being generous.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Boris, what if such a change came about as inspired/revealed change of direction? Wouldn't that supersede any promises already made?
Such a change would effectively destroy the entire purpose of the temple's existence. It's a place of quiet meditation and reflection. It would be utterly impossible to maintain such an atmosphere if the general public were allowed inside.
I was actually referring to the idea of making information publicly available, not the (wacky, I agree) idea that LDS temples will be open to the general public. Looking again at the post I was responding to I see why you thought otherwise. I managed to respond to something different from what you said. *doh*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So was I. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You aren't even one standard deviation off the mean.
Please-- this from a Utahn?
Utahn????
I live in Trinidad and Tobago.
Don't be coy. You moved there from SLC, neh?
Yes, and I moved to SLC from Montana, I moved to Montana from New Mexico, Moved to New Mexico from Seattle.
The house I own is in Montana which is where I will return eventually.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Occasional, I have no problem with the concept that "no unclean thing should enter the house of the Lord" - it's certainly true. Worthiness is an important part of being ready to go to the temple. But I think what people take offense at is the idea that anyone who's not allowed in must be necessarily considered unclean. There are others who are not allowed in, too, as Scott said - those who are not yet prepared to make the covenants there. That doesn't make them unclean. Children aren't allowed in either - they're not unclean, they're just not ready yet. Nonmembers may or may not be "unclean", but they are surely not ready to make the covenants in the temple, so they don't go in.
Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that everyone who can't go in is kept out because they're unclean or impure or unworthy. That's just how it may have come across.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If the ideas of "ritually clean" and "ritually unclean" were more common in our culture, his words probably wouldn't have sounded so offensive.
I prefer the word "worthy", which is not the same thing as cleanliness, purity, or righteousness.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Unprepared and unclean, either way the outcome is the same. The Temple isn't going to be opened to just anyone.
Edit: What m_p_h said. That is how I view it rather than any worthiness issue. The baptism idea is interesting, and from there I suppose there are other covenants that must be met for a Temple that are different than a baptism. That is some distinctions I'll have to think about.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I prefer the word "worthy", which is not the same thing as cleanliness, purity, or righteousness.
I prefer the term "prepared" and "unprepared" because as stated, preparation for entering the temple goes beyond what is generally considered being righteous or worthy. Its about being in the proper spiritual state of being to participate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Children aren't allowed in either - they're not unclean, they're just not ready yet.
Well-- it depends on the ceremony. I was sealed to my parents when they were married in the temple, and I was still a small child. I remember waiting in the temple nursery and playing on the plastic slide there before going up to the sealing room.
I don't remember anything about the sealing ceremony-- at least, nothing that corresponds to what I've seen when I've gone to do sealings for the deceased.
I would assume that children of converts who want to be sealed to their parents can do so, no matter what their age is, as long as they're worthy to enter the temple. For children (minors, anyway) I expect the wiggle room for "worthy" to be greater than that for adults.
quote:Yes, and I moved to SLC from Montana, I moved to Montana from New Mexico, Moved to New Mexico from Seattle.
My mistake. I knew you lived in Trinidad, but also remembered you living in SLC; couldn't remember which was more current, and I went for the funny rather than the accurate.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BelladonnaOrchid: I have thought for awhile about posting my opinion on Sunday's episode of Big Love as I'd lurked on this thread all of last week. I know that I'm not LDS or Mormon, but I know that some people here were irritated with Big Love's producers and staff at making the Temple ceremony part of the show.
The impression (although I see that they are incorrect) that my husband and I got from the events leading up to the Temple ceremony were that Barb was worried about being separated from her family in the afterlife. I thought that the way it was presented was beautiful and if it doesn't actually happen that way or for those reasons, I am disappointed. I do not actually know any Mormons (in person) or anybody who is LDS to discuss what I did see or what misconceptions that I did get from it.
I suppose that this isn't really contributing to the conversation at hand, but I think I wanted to tell the few people that I do know do follow beliefs anything like what I saw that I thought that it did seem beautiful in it's sacredness and that I hope that you cherish the sacrements that are real and you do take. If that made sense at all.
Thanks Bella! I appreciate hearing about your impressions. The overall impressions you had are very accurate even if many of the details in the show were not. I'm very pleased to hear that the show was actually able to portray the right feeling (at least to you) about the temple even if it didn't get everything right.
I wonder how much the sense of sacredness which you bring from your own religion helps in appreciating the sacredness of the temples within the LDS church. I've found that often people who are disturbed by the secrecy surrounding the LDS temple, don't appreciate sacredness in general.
Thanks for clarifying for me, Rabbit. That's what it seemed like was happening in the show, but I was uncertain after reading what others had to say about it here. I take with a grain of salt what I see about LDS on the show as it is fiction.
I don't know how much of my sense of sacredness comes from my own religion and how much comes from a general appreciation of religion. Both my husband and I come from fairly diverse religious backgrounds and mine is mostly non-mainstream. I think this keeps us open to the sacredness that every religion has in it's heart. I think that perhaps people who aren't able to appreciate that in a religion are poorer somehow.
At the same time, I think that maybe you were half right. Since most of our rites and rituals are private, I think that gives me an advantage for accepting the need for secrecy in a religion.
Ok, enough babbling from me on that.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Annie: Hmmm, point of curiosity. Was Jo San Cantonese?
She's actually an ethnic Korean from Northern China. Jo is the Japanese pronunciation of her name, which in Chinese is Xu.
She's one of my favorite people in the world, and I've lost her email address and I really want to talk to her again. She also makes kimchi so beautiful it makes you cry Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't see what someone who is not a member of the church or not ready to enter the temple would expect get out of seeing the temple ceremony. Curiosity is not a good enough reason, not for the temple. That would be holding the temple ceremonies too lightly. Temple ceremonies aren't really meant to be observed, but participated in. In a couple of cases I can think of, you might go to the temple specifically to observe, as in a temple wedding, but you are not there as a tourist or even an interested observer, but a close friend or family member. In other ceremonies, however, everybody present is participating in some way. The importance and gravity of the work being done precludes casual observation, and definitely precludes observation without belief and faith in what is being done.
A ceremony along the same lines of ceremonies inside the temple but that is open to all is a baptism. Witness a baptism and you will have a good idea of the spirit and frankness of what is done in the temple.
On a busy day at, say, the Provo Temple, thousands of people pass through the temple and participate together in the ceremonies. Most faces you see there are faces you've never seen before. They are doing the same things you are doing. It's not necessarily a "secret" what is done and said in the temple. It is just usually not discussed outside the setting of the temple or another appropriate setting.
Very few things are actually under the prohibition to not talk about, whether with members or non-members, but they are things that really would not be a big deal to anyone else. They aren't secrets that would allow you to save the world (or take it over) if only you could reveal them, for example. Honestly, it's pretty anticlimactic, if you're there for the first time and expecting a whole bunch of cool stuff. A fair amount of the endowment ceremony is also in the scriptures, as has already been said. There are no big surprises if you are familiar with LDS scripture and doctrine.
The importance of the temple to individual church members, IMO, is the making of the covenants given there and the spiritual strength and personal revelation they draw from their attendance. What can be observed outwardly is probably not as meaningful without the personal importance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Annie: That makes more sense. By no means am I an expert on Chinese names, but "Jo San" seemed like kind of an unusual name, although probably not impossible.
Left to my own devices, I probably would have guessed Zhou (from Jo) before Xu. Its interesting to see that the Japanese pronunciation (albeit transliterated to English!) is so different.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: A fair amount of the endowment ceremony is also in the scriptures, as has already been said. There are no big surprises if you are familiar with LDS scripture and doctrine.
A *darn* lot of what goes on in the temple is in the scriptures, and not even specifically LDS scripture, either. It's open and available to anyone who feels up to reading through it. One of the best things the temple does with this information, it seems to me, is give context, all of which is very personal to different people, and even to different experiences of the same person each time they go. I admit I'm a relative noob for the whole thing (I took out my own endowments just over a year ago) but that to me is part of what makes it special, and therefore not always open to discussion or audience.
I'm reminded of a story my brother told me about when he was a teenager, and another boy in his quorum (they must have been 14 or 15) told him everything he had heard from his dad about what "really" went on in the temple. The boy's dad, who had broken off from the church, told him everything, and it all sounded horrible and wrong. So my brother, at nineteen and trying to figure out if he really did want to go on a mission, took this baggage with him the first time he went, and was convinced that he would leave knowing the Church wasn't true, if they preached one thing and practiced something different in a place they weren't supposed to talk about. He learned for himself just how full of crap they were, and just how easy it is to take something beautiful and meaningful and make it ugly.
Getting a little bit back to the issue that started this thread, this is what I think is the real sadness of HBO deciding to air this scene. Because everyone who watched it has an inaccurate and unhelpful view of what goes on inside the temple.
An example taken from something completely frivolous: I despise Showtime's The Tudors with the burning passion of a thousand giant stars. See, the Tudor Era of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I is probably my favorite era of history, ever. I own more Tudor-era dresses than I do modern dresses. I plan to cut up my wedding dress to make Spanish sleeves. I know the subtle workings of a French Hood. I know the politics of Henry and Catherine's marriage, the high-reaching exploitation of the Seymour family, and the papal pressure from the Holy Roman emperor. I know what happened to every one of Henry's six wives (Ann of Cleves love!). But invariably, when I'm standing in line at the Home Fabrics, trying to figure out if I can squeeze a gown out of the mere 6 yards of clearance velvet I'm holding, and yes I need this much because I'm a historical costumer, that's very nice that you watch the Tudors, no they don't have historical costumes, no I'm not going to get into it, you're a moron and I'm just trying to buy fabric and I probably should have just said I'm making drapes or something, please stop following me around and telling me how much you know about Tudor costumes before I cut you all over the brocades...I get endlessly frustrated over the perpetuation of something stupid and false that's actually very awesome and exciting and cool, even if the viewer got an overly positive reaction from the representation they saw.
And this is something that I recognize as ultimately silly, and microscopically insignificant compared to the awe-inspiring importance I place on the temple.
When I heard about HBO's decision to air this episode, I was just incredibly sad. Because invariably, this representation of the temple is multiple steps away from the actual truth of the temple, and being presented as "what really happens" is just going to give people who might otherwise have been open to the church this false knowledge and bad context. The Church will move on like it always has, but I kinda mourn that potential.
This post is overly rambly, I apologize.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Unprepared and unclean, either way the outcome is the same. The Temple isn't going to be opened to just anyone.
So, as this bounces back and forth: officially, it is accurate to make a point that the LDS considers non-members as 'unclean' not worthy to see or know what happens within?
I belabor this because I am getting multiple conflicting answers as to why exactly a non-mormon is not allowed in and what non-mormons, officially, are considered.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I belabor this because I am getting multiple conflicting answers as to why exactly a non-mormon is not allowed in and what non-mormons, officially, are considered.
Members in good standing who have completed the temple recommend interview satisfactorily may enter the temple. No one else may. The appropriate attributes for those who may not enter are not necessarily well-defined and universally agreed-upon nor do all such attributes necessarily apply to every individual in this group.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Samp: They're considered non-Mormons.
The temple is a place to make covenants for people who have already made the initial covenants (at baptism) and who have demonstrated that they believe certain things and will live a certain way. Non-members have not done that; they have not fulfilled the requirements to get into the temple, much like a middle-school student has not fulfilled the requirements to get into Harvard. There is not really a judgment of worthiness or cleanliness on keeping them out, just a judgment that they have not done the prerequisites.
People who are unworthy to enter the temple are people who have made choices contrary to the standards you have to live in order to enter the temple. Usually worthiness is only considered when one is already a member and is determining whether or not they can go. For example, children can't go either, but they're not considered unworthy, just unprepared.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If someone used the word "unclean," Samprimary, they would probably be using it in the sense it is used in the Old Testament - ceremonially unclean.
The reason you are getting "multiple conflicting answers" is, frankly, because your tone is very argumentative and I, for one, am choosing my words carefully so you don't jump all over me for some perceived offense.
We don't think you're dirty. We don't think you're living the appropriate standards, however, that are necessary to qualify you for temple attendance.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't like scrapbooking or basketball.
I am truly a peculiar person among a peculiar people.
That's nothing. I dislike both scrapbooking and basketball, I can't eat anything with wheat in it, and I think republican politics are a moral outrage. Plus I'm a woman with a Ph.D. in Engineering and unable to have children.
You aren't even one standard deviaion off the mean.
I love basketball, but not scrapbooking, I can't eat anything with carbs in it (other than non-starchy veggies cooked with no bread crumbs, mushroom soup, or whatever), I think Republican politics are a moral outrage. Plus I'm a woman with a BS in Engineering and not married, and I don't even live in Utah. I've never tasted funeral potatoes and jello molds are off limits for me. My favorite bands are Tool, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails. I'm a good many standard deviations off the mean too I think. (Of course, I'm a convert and you know how they are.) Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I can accept all of that except the green bean casserole. You heretic!
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I used to hate the commonly heard phrase, concerning the Temple, "It's Sacred, not Secret," due to my thoughts that, well, it's kind of both.
Recently, I've come to appreciate it, based on a new understanding of the words.
For me, something that is Secret loses its inherent value and efficacy by being known.
With something that is Sacred (on the level of Temple Ordinances, and in many cases other personal spiritual experiences), no value is lost if the contents are known.
Having representations of Sacred things made public does not profane that which is truly Sacred.
I was married December 20, 2008 in the Atlanta Georgia Temple. While I was receiving the Sealing Ordinance, my parents, who are not members of the Church, waited for me outside the Temple.
I want them to know what I know, and to experience what I experience. Having them come into the Temple and viewing Sacred ordinances at this time without the proper preparation would not help them to know what I know, and to experience what I experience.
There are many sacred experiences and insights I've had, completely aside from the Temple, that I wish to share with my parents, but cannot, because they have repeatedly shown that they don't 'get it', nor want to.
Even if someone reads the entire temple ceremony, or views a 100% accurate reproduction of what happens therein, they haven't experienced the Temple. The Temple Ordinances are not secret. They're out there. But just because you've read it, or seen it, doesn't mean I'll discuss it with you. It's sacred.
My wife and I are both temple workers. We are intimately familiar with the ordinances. Outside of the temple, we don't discuss the details with each other. Not because it's a secret - there's nothing to hide - but because it's sacred -- and we've Covenanted not to.
[ March 17, 2009, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For weddings, I would like to see more support for ring ceremonies amongst LDS. I had one 8 years ago, so perhaps attitudes have changed, but I felt like it was very important for some LDS to make sure everyone knew that the real ceremony, the one that mattered was in the temple. The temple ceremony was important and meaningful, but so was the ring ceremony. The ring ceremony allowed us to make a public declaration of love and commitment to all our friends and family, which was important to us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: The reason you are getting "multiple conflicting answers" is, frankly, because your tone is very argumentative and I, for one, am choosing my words carefully so you don't jump all over me for some perceived offense.
My tone is frequently argumentative. More importantly, here, it is questioning. It shouldn't be the cause of multiple conflicting answers, nor is it the cause in this case. It is the result of an earnest disagreement between people answering my question on behalf of the LDS.
They're not spontaneously creating multiple interpretations because they are afraid of my responses.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Samp, Personally, I'm not afraid of any response anyone can give me- since it will never have the power to shake my convictions. As long as you provide good legitimate arguments for others to discuss, then I don't think anyone in this forum will have a problem with your responses or arguments. I don't understand your background or experiences in this discussion. In response to your issues of getting "conflicting" answers to your questions, could it be your own lack of experience or understanding of the particular topic? I'm asking, because I don't see any conflicting responses (I have a fairly good understanding of this topic). I only see differences of opinions or opinions that are based off of different points of view to an immensly deep topic.
Scholarette, My wife and I were married in the temple, and had our family come from all corners of the States, and from Canada. I had some family who wasn't able to attend the temple ceremony- a grandma and aunt, and even my own oldest sister. Most of them were fine with the idea they weren't allowed into the ceremony for whatever reason, but it became obvious my sister's feelings were hurt that she seemed to feel left out. I believe this is her own guilt for knowing what it's all about having gone through herself many years ago, and of having lived her latter days in a way that excluded her from participating. We're a very close family, and she has been making very strong efforts to getting her spiritual affairs in order. My point- that night we had our own wedding celebration party that was small, but more of a traditional wedding celebration thing that tried to include everyone. We think it's important to include all close family, regardless their religious circumstances in the wedding festivities somehow and at some point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In response to your issues of getting "conflicting" answers to your questions, could it be your own lack of experience or understanding of the particular topic?
No, no, it's pretty much assuredly because I'm receiving conflicting answers. I even have individuals directly telling me that the answers provided by other individuals are wrong.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Mormons aren't monolithic. You likely won't get consensus from us; I'm never going to agree that non-members are inherently unclean.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Calling everyone who isn't a card-carrying Mormon unclean is way more black and white than I think the gospel is. It's an "us and them" mindset, which I don't think is appropriate.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I agree with katharina and Scott R on this. Other people who aren't members aren't unclean. I haven't been to the temple yet, and I don't carry a recommend, and I'm not unclean either. My whole family besides me isn't LDS and my son isn't LDS and most of my closest friends aren't LDS. In no way do I think of any of them as unclean. I think that word 'unclean' came from a verse of scriptures that was being applied as an analogy and not literally.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Originally posted by Samp No, no, it's pretty much assuredly because I'm receiving conflicting answers. I even have individuals directly telling me that the answers provided by other individuals are wrong.
There's no way for me to reply to this comment without using spite and sarcasm. In all fairness, how do you presume to be the one with all the answers? Because a few of the LDS members you associate with tell you something is or isn't true, what makes their word more valid than those of us in this forum? Ask your friends to point out the conflicting answers, so I can better understand why you are making such an absolute statement.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
beleaguered, I think that the conflict Samprimary is talking about is between the answers he's received on this forum.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No, no, it's pretty much assuredly because I'm receiving conflicting answers. I even have individuals directly telling me that the answers provided by other individuals are wrong.
You are asking questions that go into a level of detail that the average church member may not be prepared to answer with authority. Every member knows that a recommend is required to enter the temple. Many know the specific requirements for obtaining a recommend. Answers about what characteristics of individuals that don't hold recommends preclude them from temple attendance requires a process of extrapolation based on what people do know to synthesize a list of such attributes. It's not common/necessary knowledge.
Even so, the answers here are not necessarily contradictory, even the ones that claim another answer is wrong. It's clear that there are some different definitions being used here and that different people are focusing on different criteria for temple attendance, of which there are several.
I think the best way to put it is that those who are allowed into the temple have been "certified" as meeting requirements that insure a certain level of preparedness for the individual as well as a certain level of "cleanliness" (or whatever you wish to call it) for the Temple.
Any given person may or may not meet any or all of those requirements, but only those which have been through this certification process are actually permitted to enter.
It's like a vehicle safety/emissions certification - any car *may* meet the safety and emissions standards regardless of whether they've been tested, but those which have been tested by the proper authorities are permitted to drive on public roads.
Think of the recommend as a spiritual quality assurance certification.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am the cause of the conflicting answers since I am the one who introduced (and will personally stick with) the "unclean" designation. Since I feel it is has both an historical and Scriptural basis in relation to Temples, it is the word I intend to use.
I don't see any conflicting answers between anyone other than myself. Even then, the answer is not as distinct from the others as you are forcing the issue. The arguments are for the most part about semantics. Anything, evil or not, of this world is considered "unclean" to the Lord. It indicates the dividing line between Heaven and Earth. To enter the Temple something needs to be either Holy by its own merit (pure, innocent such as little children) or consecrated (such as a baptized LDS member) and purified (such as repentant sinner). A non-member might be pure and innocent, but they are not consecrated. A little child is theologically pure, innocent, and consecrated by the Atonement of Christ before the age of accountability.
The reason for this is that the Temple represents, and is theologically considered, the House of the Lord or Heb. sechina. It is Heaven on Earth. A person enters to experience the divine by ritual and spiritual presence. It is considered the equivalent of the Jewish Tabernacle of Moses, and the Jerusalem Temple of Solomon and Herod. The difference is, of course, that more than a High Priest may enter because Christ's Atonement is said to have opened that up to all who become worthy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* I don't see anything wrong with using the word "unclean" here. All it really means is "less special."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:All it really means is "less special."
I have a vivid childhood memory of a little Mormon girl telling me "we're not better, we're just more special."
I guess if the Jews get to be the Chosen people then the Mormons can be the Special people. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* I don't see anything wrong with using the word "unclean" here. All it really means is "less special."
Yes Tom that is precisely what it means. I am going to drop your name with the church's PR department because clearly they need your insight.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I plan on using the word "aromatic." Only the aromatic can enter the temple.
--- BTW, Tom, I can't tell if you're kidding or not, but in case you are not: your interpretation is not correct.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The word "unclean" when used in a discussion on religion carries a much deeper connotation than what Tom implies.
It conjures leprousy, sickness, and sin. To say something is unclean in a discussion like this is to equate it with being filthy. Not just spotted, not just a little dusty-- but completely disgusting.
That's my understanding of the word in this discussion, and why I object to Occasional's use of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It conjures leprousy, sickness, and sin. To say something is unclean in a discussion like this is to equate it with being filthy.
But isn't the issue ultimately one of sin -- or at least being removed from a state of grace? Certainly the Catholic concept of being "dirty" between confessions would seem to apply here.
I can understand why the connotation seems less inviting to people who would prefer the opposite, but isn't the whole point that temple attendees have attained a better state than people who cannot enter the temple?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But isn't the issue ultimately one of sin
Not necessarily. This bit was on page five:
quote:I fear that some people are granted temple recommends before they are really prepared for them. I feel that sometimes we unduly rush people to the temple. Converts and those who have recently come into activity need a substantial measure of maturity in the Church. They need understanding of the grand concepts of the eternal gospel. They need to have demonstrated over a period of time their capacity to discipline their lives in such a way as to be worthy to enter the House of the Lord, for the obligations there assumed are eternal. For this reason, many years ago the First Presidency determined that a convert to the Church should wait a year following baptism before going to the House of the Lord. It was the expectation that during that year he or she would have grown in understanding, as well as in capacity to exercise that measure of self-discipline which would result in personal worthiness.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Tom asked two questions: "Isn't the issue ultimately one of sin?" - It's one of not meeting the prerequisites to attend the temple. That can happen for a number of reasons; being unclean or unworthy because of sin is one of them. Being too young and not understanding the covenants is one. Not believing in the gospel as contained in the Church is one. (Whether one wants to call that "sin" or not is up for debate, I suppose, but I don't.) So to say that being unclean keeps one out of the temple is correct, but to me, implying that anyone who can't go to the temple is unclean is not correct.
I do understand Occasional's use of the word "unclean", and in the scriptural sense it's right. I agree with Scott, though, that in modern usage it implies filthiness and sin, and does not give the right impression in this discussion.
The second question - "Isn't the whole point that temple attendees have attained a better state than people who cannot enter the temple?" Hmm ... I'd say yes. In the same sense that one who has graduated Harvard has achieved a better state than an elementary school student or high-school dropout. But then, not everyone wants a Harvard degree. So I guess the definition of "better" is up to the answerer.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I would say (and again, I am just an individual LDS believer, acting on my own interpretations of the teachings I've read and heard over my lifetime - this isn't the type of thing they preach over the pulpit: "Non-Mormons can't enter the temple because they're unclean!") that Jenna's points are very important. There are those who have once attended the temple but now cannot because they are not living their covenants - in that case it is their sin that is keeping them from being worthy. There are also those in total ignorance of the covenants and commandments that prepare one to enter the temple, whether they be non-Mormons or children who haven't yet learned these things. In that case, it's not sin that's keeping them out, it's ignorance. This is why a new convert, even if he has repented of his sins and been baptized, must still wait a year to receive his temple endowment. He's living the correct standards, so it's obviously not sin that's keeping him from the temple, it's merely the prerequisite information and experience.
So, your random Joe off the street would most likely need to repent of his sins and cease any sort of habitual sinful behavior (which is a requirement for baptism anyway) AND go through the preparatory ordinances (baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination for men, and being a member in good standing for one year) if he wanted to enter the temple. There are two aspects to the preparation.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Isn't the whole point that temple attendees have attained a better state than people who cannot enter the temple?
They have promised to live a higher level of standards, and are accountable for that. It is a better state, yes, in terms of being free from the bondage of sin. But it is also a state that requires more responsibility, and more culpability if you break those standards.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:In the same sense that one who has graduated Harvard has achieved a better state than an elementary school student or high-school dropout. But then, not everyone wants a Harvard degree. So I guess the definition of "better" is up to the answerer.
For some reason, this makes me think about Bruce Springsteen. I'm trying to imagine how he'd treat the concept of the kingdoms of heaven.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The kingdom of heaven is all about clean and unclean and worthy and unworthy and who is the most speciallist.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:The kingdom of heaven is all about clean and unclean and worthy and unworthy and who is the most speciallist.
If that's what you believe, I can't argue with you, but that's not what we believe.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The kingdom of heaven is all about clean and unclean and worthy and unworthy and who is the most speciallist.
Kmboots--
Is this a criticism of Mormonism's beliefs?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:All it really means is "less special."
I have a vivid childhood memory of a little Mormon girl telling me "we're not better, we're just more special."
I guess if the Jews get to be the Chosen people then the Mormons can be the Special people.
Eh. It could have been "more equal."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots: Is that what you believe? It isn't what I believe and it isn't what Mormon doctrine says. I'm surprised that it is what you believe, though. It seems a very juvenile view of Chist's teachings about the Kingdom of God.
MattP: I'm not surprised you heard that from a little girl. It is a juvenile view of the Kingdom of God. Young brains in general have trouble with abstract concepts like grace and stewardship and charity and responsibility.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:All it really means is "less special."
I have a vivid childhood memory of a little Mormon girl telling me "we're not better, we're just more special."
I guess if the Jews get to be the Chosen people then the Mormons can be the Special people.
Eh. It could have been "more equal."
Less Snowball and more Boxer Mucus if you could. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course. Because I am never sarcastic.
All this talk about who is worthy and who is unworthy and not living "appropriately" and being unclean was making me itch.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I guess if the Jews get to be the Chosen people then the Mormons can be the Special people.
I think the word we're looking for here is "peculiar". Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kate: It would be nice if you expressed that directly instead of lying about another group's beliefs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots--
I've always wondered what your position on sin is. What makes someone, in your opinion, unclean, or unworthy? Can a person be unclean or unworthy from your point of view?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And how did you get that I was stating what your beliefs are?
My comment was a reaction to this conversation. I will not venture a guess about how well or poorly this conversation reflects actual LDS beliefs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My comment was a reaction to this conversation.
Which was about how Mormons view non-members. Can you see how your comment could be construed as a criticism of Mormonism?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie:
quote:Isn't the whole point that temple attendees have attained a better state than people who cannot enter the temple?
They have promised to live a higher level of standards, and are accountable for that. It is a better state, yes, in terms of being free from the bondage of sin. But it is also a state that requires more responsibility, and more culpability if you break those standards.
I think using the term "better" is misleading. Mucus' "more equal" reference is telling because in Animal Farm "more equal" implied that you got a greater reward and that is a distortion of what we believe about the temple.
I at least don't believe (and haven't been taught) that those who have attended have attained a better state and will necessarily receive a greater reward than those who cannot or do not choose to enter the temple.
When you enter the temple, you choose to accept greater responsibilities than those who have not entered the temple. Those responsibilities come right now, the minute you have received the temple ordinances. The reward for accepting those responsibilities doesn't come until far far in the future. Once I have accepted the responsibilities associated with the temple endowment, I won't receive any reward unless I fill those responsibilities throughout my life. And while we believe that everyone must eventually accept those responsibilities to receive the greatest rewards, we don't believe that those who accept the responsibilities at the age of 19 will receive any greater reward than those who accept them at the age of 90 or even those who accept them after they have died. So one who receives the temple endowment at the age of 19 but does not faithfully live up to the the higher standard may in fact receive a lesser reward than a person who lives an exemplary loving and kind life and never (even in the afterlife) accepts the ordinances of the temple.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that religions in general focus far too much on who is in and who isn't. This conversation is a demonstration of that. Again, I don't know whether this is an accurate picture of Mormon doctrine, specifically and I don't think that exclusion is specific to your faith. I do think that Christians who are focused on who is in and who isn't are missing the point.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The reward for accepting those responsibilities doesn't come until far far in the future. Once I have accepted the responsibilities associated with the temple endowment, I won't receive any reward unless I fill those responsibilities throughout my life.
This doesn't take into account the temporal blessings associated with living the temple standards. It's not entirely about a greater reward in the afterlife. Living that way is supposed to bring you greater joy in this life too.
quote:So one who receives the temple endowment at the age of 19 but does not faithfully live up to the the higher standard may in fact receive a lesser reward than a person who lives an exemplary loving and kind life and never (even in the afterlife) accepts the ordinances of the temple.
True. In fact, they would potentially be worse off, having made covenants and not keeping them, than having never made them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What makes someone, in your opinion, unclean, or unworthy? Can a person be unclean or unworthy from your point of view?
I would also be interested in Kate's answers to these questions.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This is clearly an issue of semantics. Some people regard "unclean" as a word not used by them, their religion etc. or as meaning something stronger than the antipathy they feel towards "other" people.
There is a sense of other inherent to almost all religions, especially those that are cliquey. I'm afraid that the CoJCoLDS is somewhat of a cliquey church (or you could say, more discerning, exclusive, whichever word appeals to you.)
Labelling those not within the church is always something that doesn't necessarily reflect the others themselves but how the church restricts itself in making distinctions between themselves and the "others". Obviously, there is some concern around the word "unclean" because it is perceived as being quite a harsh word.
But others may not regard it as quite so harsh. According to Leviticus, many things make a person temporarily unclean, even if he or she is "clean" in every other respect.
But being unworthy to enter a church is basically always, however you frame it, being banned--temporarily or permanently--from achieving the state of grace granted by having direct access to God's house or God's go-between. This has to be regarded as a serious problem. A person has been judged 'not clean enough', 'not something enough to continue his or her journey (yet or forever).
If you (legitimately and honestly) quibble with the terminology, it is a reflection of your personal relations with other people not in your church. If you feel uncomfortable in calling me unclean (since, as an atheist, I am certainly not worthy enough to enter any church), then it reflects well on your empathy, forgiveness and understanding of others. I believe that in Christianity not being quick to judge others is considered a good thing. In short, you are a good person.
But the meaning of the word 'unclean' is not changed because you are uncomfortable with it or feel it is too harsh. I think that within the context of religion and the Bible (especially the Old Testament), "unclean" is a well-established word used to refer to people who are somehow not as clean as required, even if it is just, for example, because they are menstruating.
I am not personally offended by being called unclean within the context of this or any other religion. Of course I am unclean: I break the only rule that really matters.
Although I understand it, I do not espouse this view, since I oppose most iterations of exclusivity. But I can shake off the dust of my feet as well as anyone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think that religions in general focus far too much on who is in and who isn't. This conversation is a demonstration of that.
Well-- this conversation started out as a question about why Mormons wouldn't let non-Mormons enter the temple. So of course at a certain level, it's a discussion about who is in and who isn't; that is a basic reason of there being a discussion at all.
I mean, it's kind of like saying, in a conversation about quantum physics, "I think science focuses too much on physics. This conversation is a demonstration of that."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: (since, as an atheist, I am certainly not worthy enough to enter any church),
I can't think of many churches that believe that. (Including the LDS, as I'm certain you'd be welcome in a church building, just not the temple.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: kmboots--
I've always wondered what your position on sin is. What makes someone, in your opinion, unclean, or unworthy? Can a person be unclean or unworthy from your point of view?
If I can venture a guess, I'd say that boots finds those questions ones that she is not qualified to make judgments on, or, at the very least, ones that she is extremely uninterested in.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one is asking for her to declare gospel. I am, however, interested in her opinion.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: (since, as an atheist, I am certainly not worthy enough to enter any church),
I can't think of many churches that believe that. (Including the LDS, as I'm certain you'd be welcome in a church building, just not the temple.)
I mean, as a clean person. Being welcome in a literal sense is different from being recognized as one of the clean.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think you understand.
I could be wrong, but I think that is probably a pretty good idea of how she looks at it. If you are interested in her opinion, you'd probably do well to actually try to understand that as something other than a dodge.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think you understand.
I could be wrong, but I think that is probably a pretty good idea of how she looks at it. If you are interested in her opinion, you'd probably do well to actually try to understand that as something other than a dodge.
How about we just let kmboots answer for herself?
Or not answer. It seemed like something she wanted to talk about, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Kate can speak for herself concerning her personal religious beliefs.
If she doesn't have an opinion on whether or not anything is a sin, I'd be interested in hearing that from her as well.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: The post I was responding to has, apparently, been deleted. But the poster was right in expressing confusion, so I will go along and clarify myself anyway.
By my statement of being unwelcome, I mean that if there is any definition of unclean that exists, I, surely, am it.
As it makes it a little closer to what I meant, although somewhat dramatic, replace 'church' in my original statement with 'Kingdom of Heaven', and have that kingdom defined de facto by the tenets of the religious (rather than only by God).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I shouldn't be the one saying this, but apparently no one else will.
You've pretty clearly got your nasty witch hat on. You'd do well to take it off.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:What makes someone, in your opinion, unclean, or unworthy? Can a person be unclean or unworthy from your point of view?
I would also be interested in Kate's answers to these questions.
I think people are in relationship with God - sometimes those relationships are better and closer and sometimes they are broken. This is not a case of being unworthy or unclean as it is a need for reconciliation.
And it is not for me to judge the worthiness of anyone. I think that for anyone but God to try to decide who is worthy and who isn't is contrary to the message of the Gospels.
ETA: Sorry it took so long. I was in a meeting. MrSquicky was doing pretty well, though.
ETAA: Teshi, I have no doubt that you would be joyfully welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
It's worth noting that the ritual purity and impurity, cleanliness and uncleanliness of the Torah - tumah and taharah - are not the same concept as being a sinner - moral misbehavior - in modern Christianity.
The first rituals one experiences in the LDS temple - after one has been accepted for admittance - are a type of ritual purification. That would seem to indicate that one is in fact expected to be ritually unclean when one enters the temple, and is cleansed through progression through its rites. That cleansing is not based upon personal behavior (and thus is not reflective of one's morality), but rather is achieved through participation in ritual.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not interested in conversing with you, Squick.
---
Good point, Matt. Why would the washing be necessary if people were expected to be clean when they came?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's something really interesting about the intersecting paradigms here that I'm having a problem turning into words.
There's the religious tradition of the division of the world into sacred and profane, where the sacred is stuff that is specifically made so and the profane is everything else. Jews and LDS have this more strongly than do most contemporary Christian sects and also have this concept of uncleanliness devoid of a derogatory connotation.
I think, in mainstream christian thought, uncleanliness has taken on negative aspects. I don't know if this is tied into a break down of the strict sacred/profane division.
boots is, if I understand her correctly, coming from a viewpoint where there is no real division between the sacred and profane.
And then...something. It's neat in my head, but I haven't gelled it into words yet.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Indeed. Modern Mormonism tends to conflate religion with ethical behavior, and thus there's not much of a discussion about what ritual does in the church.
Secondly, I also want to note that while the particulars that the episode Sunday showed would be considered sacrosanct in any period of church history, discourse about the temple among modern Mormons, both within and without the Church has gotten increasingly narrow over the past century. Mormons have gotten more secretive about it, both in dialogue with non-Mormons and with other Mormons. Frankly, the secrecy that surrounds it now strikes me as something of an overkill, and is far out of proportion to what actually in the ceremony is singled out as private. I suspect it's something of a reaction to the cultural assimilation that's eliminated so much else of Mormon distinctiveness; secrecy is a way to preserve a sense of set-apartness and holiness that used to be quite palpable in the air in Utah.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Matt: I've heard that that was one of the functions of polygamy, although not necessarily of the intentions: it truly did create a peculiar people, and there are benefits to that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MattB, I think the impulse to see ourselves or out group as more special than other people - as set apart - is a very human thing. I also see it as something that Jesus addressed pretty specifically. He made a point of hanging around with those considered unclean. He spoke to the woman at the well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you think that the sense of set-apartness is linked to that of holiness?
In set-apart groups, there is often a tendency to regard the things that set them apart as more important to whatever the purpose of the group is than those that are shared with other groups, even if these distinguishing characteristics are irrelevant or even detrimental to this purpose.
On the other hand, there's a neat bit in Snowcrash where he's talking about informational hygiene in ancient, specifically Jewish, religions in a way that seems analogous to virus control in computers. Isolation is one of the more powerful tools of informational hygiene.
Is there a link between ritual and informational hygiene? I think this is obviously the case.
edit:
If you have a message that it is important to keep the same, fostering a community that is set apart in many ways would be a strong way to do this. Revealed knowledge calls for maintaining this message, whereas it's destructive to experiential/developed knowledge.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, at least historically in the Catholic Church, there is also an element of control and power. You get a lot of power if you control who is in and who is out especially when you are "holding the keys to heaven".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Oh, no doubt. You can't have any sort of thing like this without control/power issues. The most extreme case is with isolationist cults.
But considering the Catholic Church example, while the Inquisition did pretty awful things to those judged "out", it did also serve to preserve the central tenets of the Church.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say the LDS church definitely does have ways in which it maintains a separateness from the world. The temple and the ceremonies therein is definitely one way.
However, quite like Jesus at the well, we also open the gospel to as much of the world as we can, and invite all to join, regardless of where they're at in their lives.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:I think that religions in general focus far too much on who is in and who isn't. This conversation is a demonstration of that.
This conversation is a result of repeated questioning about "why aren't non-Mormons allowed in your temple?" It is a good representation of LDS beliefs insofar as there are a good number of actual Mormons here answering the questions, but it's not at all indicative of what teachings in the Mormon church tend to focus on.
The emphasis in our church meetings is never "these sorts of people will get to go to heaven and these sorts of people won't." It centers on teaching principles for individual improvement. Everyone in the congregation gets the lesson on prayer at the same time, no matter how well they've implemented prayer in their own lives. And it's because everyone needs it. We have an emphasis on eternal progression - on approaching perfection, so no matter what "level" you consider yourself, you are taught to improve the areas you need to prove to the best of your ability.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Oh, no doubt. You can't have any sort of thing like this without control/power issues. The most extreme case is with isolationist cults.
But considering the Catholic Church example, while the Inquisition did pretty awful things to those judged "out", it did also serve to preserve the central tenets of the Church.
True. I do think that preserving tenets and preserving power can get muddled and that is a danger.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Katie - I do think that was the intent, actually.
boots - sure enough, but I think you're focusing upon the exclusionary aspects only. The Bible and Christ do care a great deal about creating sacred, set apart communities, and using ritual to do it. This is the body of Christ, the Church universal, which is a unnatural community created of God's intervention into the profane world. Baptism and the Eucharist are both designed to do this, and the point of evangelism is to bring more and more people into that ritual community. Paul clearly recognizes this.
Squick - lots of theorists of religion argue that holiness is all about positioning and place. Dirt becomes dirty only when it is in places it should not be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I do understand Occasional's use of the word "unclean", and in the scriptural sense it's right. I agree with Scott, though, that in modern usage it implies filthiness and sin, and does not give the right impression in this discussion.
The second question - "Isn't the whole point that temple attendees have attained a better state than people who cannot enter the temple?" Hmm ... I'd say yes.
This seems a good final take on it, I guess.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Katie - I do think that was the intent, actually.
For polygamy? I don't think so, personally. I think the intent was more along the lines of Jacob 2:30
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Fair enough, Anneke - but I think I read that verse differently than you seem to. Demographics indicate that nineteenth century Mormon birth rates (that is, the child to women ratio in the Mormon population) were not significantly higher than those of American monogamous marriages at the same time.
(Though it is true that a slightly higher percentage of women seem to have been married in polygamous Utah than in the US as a whole. This boosted overall production of Mormon children by a small amount. The flip side is that the numbers of single men skyrocketed, and there were fewer families overall. The ratio's off due to the small number of polygamous men with more than two or three wives, which then deprived that number of men of any wife at all. The old story about there being a lot of widowed woman who needed husbands is mostly a myth. For all these stats, see Carmon Hardy's article "That Same Old Question: recent findings on nineteenth and early twentieth century polygamy" in the Utah Historical Quarterly, 2005; Hardy also frequently - but not exclusively - references Kathy Daynes's landmark book More Wives than One.)
Further, raising a seed was not the way Joseph explained polygamy to people in Nauvoo; rather he told people that polygamy was celestial marriage, the the final ordinance necessary to gain exaltation, which was generally how Brigham Young and other General Authorities explained it. Indeed, Joseph (and other Nauvoo-era polygamists, who really practiced a different marriage system than the one that later emerged in Utah) did not have sex with at least a significant minority of his wives, which seems counterintuitive for the purposes of the seed hypothesis.
All that given, I think polygamy turned a religion into a nation in a cultural and ideological sense, and forged a communal sense of identity on earth that dramatically illustrated sealing theology. That's a reading I think is perfectly consistent with the language of the Jacob verse.
(A final parenthetical: the historian Todd Compton argues that polygamy was a dynastic institution that created a strong central core of Mormon leadership all linked and made loyal to each other through polygamous marriages. Given the historical course of Mormon leadership and the dynastic nature of many prominent Mormon families - the Bensons, the Ballards, the Cannons, the Pratt-Romney clan, the Grants, the Whitneys, the Kimballs, and so on - there might be something to that.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
<edit>Deleted post. Wasn't adding anything to the dialogue, just venting frustration.</edit>
[ March 19, 2009, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I think if everyone deleted the non-productive "just venting" posts, this thread might only be half as many pages. I think the discussion has gone in complete circles at least once with little contribution. Maybe I aught to look back at my posts . . . Hmm
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'd be swayed by the dynastic opinions, I think. Not necessarily producing more people overall, but producing more people in certain families. Maybe there was a reason the world needed a whole lot of Heber C. Kimballs, Jr.
Of course, this is wild, rampant speculation, and my official opinion on it is that God did it for His purposes, just like He did with Abraham and Jacob (... did Isaac have multiple wives? We only know about the one, right?) and that it's really not something we can historically deduce.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote: Of course, this is wild, rampant speculation
Surely, and I actually think we'd do better with a deeper sense of the inscrutability of God among the Mormons.
That said, it's in human nature to try making sense of God; we all do speculative theology, whether we think we do or not, and it's better to be aware of it (and thus humble about the inevitable assumptions that we make) than not. So, if we are to attempt to explain polygamy is better explained via theological reasons (the nature of salvation, unraveling what exactly sealing means, etc) than with material-historical ones (ie, demographics, widows, and so forth).
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
That's true, MattB, and the other thing that I think is relevant is that each person comes to their own understanding of the various doctrines, the one that works for them.
For instance, I had a huge hang up on my way to becoming Christian over the idea that I should allow Christ to suffer for my sins in my place. It was very personal to me because Christ as the innocent sufferer had several very real analogues in my life, and there is just no way I would agree to let them suffer agonies that were due to my flaws and errors. The very idea is appalling, sort of like Ursula K. LeGuin's story about those who walk away from Omelas. I just wasn't about to do that.
Then I read in C.S. Lewis that you don't have to have the same picture of the atonement that other people have. You can picture it as a debt you can't pay that Christ stepped in and paid for you. Or you can think of it in a number of other ways. All the doctrines have multiple levels of meaning, and they're quite rich and varied in their application to life, so that as you grow in wisdom and understanding through the years, you're able to see more and more than ever came to you at first.
I realized this solved my problem completely. So I accepted Christ's love and his sponsorship of me, and things got so much better for me at that point. I realize now that the most important thing is to accept. Until we agree to that relationship, until we're reconciled to that connection, Christ can't help us. His hands are tied. He can't and won't do anything to us against our wills.
So even if the doctrine taught by the church is painstakingly correlated and approved by multiple authorized witnesses and servants of the Lord, we still all have our personal view of things that holds the most meaning for us individually. That's why you can get different slants on things from different believers in the same doctrines.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I have a decent number of people tell me that the LDS Church is "too picky", or too focused on who will make it and who wont. Never in those words of course, but I feel like it's the same kind of comments that were made previous. And disposed of so I guess I'll have only myself to blame (as will you all) if this just brings up another fire, but I wanted to comment on it.
While I acknowledge that there are some serious negative consequences that could arise from taking this too far (and sometimes do unfortunately, such as the holier-than-thou attitude that can develop in ... well really any community) it's not as if it was invented in the early 1800s by Joseph Smith. If everyone, everywhere were to be saved then a whole lot of people have wasted a whole lot of time; and here I'm think of Christ, the prophets and apostles of the Bible. Not that everyone in this discussion believes in the Bible but obviously LDS do. To say we shouldn't have some method of choosing people would be akin to telling us to get rid of The Book of Mormon (or the Bible) because it separates us from the rest of the world. May seem like a great idea to those outside the faith but it pretty obviously isn't going to happen.
Just about all Christian religions I'm aware of have some criteria about making it into heaven. It ranges from the very strict (which the LDS Church certainly falls on that end of the spectrum) to the very limited, but I can't say I've run into any Christian faiths that believe in universal salvation (and here I mean, everyone whose ever lived or ever will live is saved). Another common thread is that all of the Christian religions I'm aware of the real determining factor is desire. Sometimes desire alone is enough, sometimes it has to be acted on. Sometimes, such as getting to the point where you're ready to enter the Temple it has to be acted on quite a bit!
Any community has rules about whose part of that community and who isn't. Locally it may just be if you live there or not. For the major political parties in the US you just need to declare yourself as a member of that party. Other organizations have dues and contracts to be signed. What's the use of a community, or defining a community if there's no definition of membership? I recognize most of the criticism here (or whatever it is) is directed towards allowing others in a building not overall into the Church. So my reasoning is: try to see the Temple and its ordinance as an extension of the community. It's an integral part of who we are: it's a part of what defines us. The rules that allow entrance are the same as those that allow entrance into the community itself. We all belong to many communities: some more important to us than others. It is possible to allow that community membership to become something negative even when the whole community is positive. If we allow the idea that our membership has made us intrinsically better than we are in danger, and that doesn't go just for religion. However, I would think that any decent community would say that though they hope they're able to provide tools to improve a person's life (in a way that makes sense to them) membership doesn't make one person better than another. Not all groups do and some seem to form for the express purpose of doing the opposite; but when it comes to the LDS Church that's certainly the Church's position and I've found it to be the majority opinion as well.
I hope those thoughts weren't too cluttered or superfluous, if it doesn't make sense I'll try to clarify!
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hobbes: I completely agree, even a cursory reading of Jesus' words shows that he had pretty tough requirements and he wasn't about apologizing for them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote: If everyone, everywhere were to be saved then a whole lot of people have wasted a whole lot of time; and here I'm think of Christ, the prophets and apostles of the Bible.
quote:Just about all Christian religions I'm aware of have some criteria about making it into heaven. It ranges from the very strict (which the LDS Church certainly falls on that end of the spectrum) to the very limited, but I can't say I've run into any Christian faiths that believe in universal salvation (and here I mean, everyone whose ever lived or ever will live is saved).
I hope you don't mind me taking those two portions of your post out of context, Hobbes - hopefully the full context is close by enough for it not to matter, but I do also think these two snippets form an important point. (With which I'm about to disagree, I think.)
I honestly think there's room to look at Jesus Christ, specifically, and simply remove postmortal salvation from the picture, and still have a message and a mission that are very far from a waste of time.
Conditional salvation isn't a necessary precondition for proselytizing, or preaching, in other words. The simple fact of making earthly life better is enough of a reason.
The impassive reality, though, is that humans need either a carrot or a stick that is sweet enough or sharp enough to motivate.
When you can get people to recognize the greater good as their carrot, you don't need to promise them salvation.
I'd say that's been hard to accomplish, though, because in practice it looks like you need to appeal to selfishness. Promises of salvation, of glory, of exaltation: motivational techniques.
Edit: Or you can use the stick of shunning or condemning the disobedient, threatening with eternal torment, etc. I'm glad that several sects of Christianity don't preach hellfire so much any more, because it seems a very unworthy method of persuasion.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I agree that there are benefits to a "Christian Life" that extend beyond the salvation that can only come after we've shuffled off this mortal coil (I just wanted to say that ). However, as Paul said: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1st Cor 15:19). I wasn't trying to insinuate that living teachings like "turn the other cheek" or "love your neighbor as yourself" had no value to us now; rather I was saying that the Bible (through those I listed) certainly chastised and promised a great deal. In other words, I was trying to refute the unspoken idea that just having requirements was foolish for a religion whose operating text had not a few. I understand your point of seeking the best for humanity, for humanities sake it's just not something I was trying to prove or (more to the point) disprove.
When it comes to this, I don't disagree but I would like to point out that in the context of this thread it becomes a difficult discussion to have for two reasons: a) we could never agree on general goals for humanity and b) looking at life as an incredibly short prelude to the eternities to follow creates a very different context for that discussion than viewing life as the only time we have.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I honestly think there's room to look at Jesus Christ, specifically, and simply remove postmortal salvation from the picture, and still have a message and a mission that are very far from a waste of time.
It seems to me that if you do that, you're no longer talking about Christ's message. As good a message as it might be, it's not his.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think I disagree with Hobbes quite a bit. And it's interesting that the LDS faith is actually structured so that many diverse beliefs all fit. The way we define ourselves is more by orthopraxis than by orthodoxy.
Anyway, the LDS faith is only a tiny hairsbreadth away from universalism. We believe that through baptism for the dead and other ordinances that almost everyone eventually will attain some degree of glory. We have three heavens and no hell. There is something called outer darkness that we believe a very few, a tiny minority, will end up in. It's not punishment but rather nothingness. It's only by the person's own choice that they go there. It's actually heartbreaking, because it takes a definite act of will to want to be there, and a refusal to be open to any other interpretation of life than that. But it's definitely an extremely thin slice of humanity who will choose that in the end. We get many many chances here and in the afterlife, to choose otherwise. That's what temple ordinances by proxy are all about. We plan to do them for everyone who has ever lived, eventually, during the millennium, so that the entire human family has that option.
So I don't agree with Hobbes that only a few make it. I think we're as universal a religion as can possibly be, shy of absolute universalism, which is a religion, and many of the early LDS converts came from there.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: but I can't say I've run into any Christian faiths that believe in universal salvation (and here I mean, everyone whose ever lived or ever will live is saved).
You may not have run into them, but they exist. A minority position since Augustine, but definitly out there.
quote: Another common thread is that all of the Christian religions I'm aware of the real determining factor is desire. [/QB]
Hobbes, meet Calvin. Calvin, Hobbes. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I honestly think there's room to look at Jesus Christ, specifically, and simply remove postmortal salvation from the picture, and still have a message and a mission that are very far from a waste of time.
It seems to me that if you do that, you're no longer talking about Christ's message. As good a message as it might be, it's not his.
Fair enough. I suppose if you take Christ's motivations into account, altering his message would indeed be to invalidate the time and effort he spent.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:So I don't agree with Hobbes that only a few make it.
AK, I never said that, I was referring to the doctrine of "universal salvation" meaning that all will make it. We know that this is not true and I think you'll agree. What the end number will end up being and how it will compare to the number of those who aren't I don't pretend to be able to even guess at it. Specifically within LDS theology we know at least 1/3 the host of heaven who rebelled in the beginning an followed Lucifer wont make it. Some take that number as symbolic and I suppose it could be any number: as long as it's above zero. Beyond that there's some people who we've been told specifically have come to this Earth and will not return to salvation in the fullest (or any) sense. Not many as it's rarely our business, but a few scriptural characters. There also has to be people going to those Kingdoms you brought up (or way create and then talk about them?) so we know there's going to be some people not making it. That's all I said.
quote:You may not have run into them, but they exist. A minority position since Augustine, but definitly out there.
I'm not surprised (and I always appreciate your very informed additions to these discussion , FYI) though I really hadn't heard of any. I have spoken to people that believed this (within the Christian faith) but I was never able to find a Church that actually taught it.
quote:Hobbes, meet Calvin. Calvin, Hobbes.
I've never cared much for Calvinist doctrine, but I'll also admit to knowing little beyond the basic "predestinationalism" (yes I can make up my own words, want to fight about it?) doctrine and from the also very little I know about the man: his drive impresses me.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Hobbes, meet Calvin. Calvin, Hobbes.
*giggle*
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, Hobbes, I think the people who make it to the other kingdoms have also made it! That may be where we differ.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Oh, Hobbes, I think the people who make it to the other kingdoms have also made it! That may be where we differ.
I don't know how much discussion this merits, but this is one point in particular that I find very interesting/important about LDS beliefs: that all three kingdoms of heaven constitute a reward (and an improvement over mortal life). I commented to my mother that it is somewhat ironic to see this belief juxtaposed with the grief and anxiety that not living up to the highest standards often causes among LDS. (But I understand that a desire to remain eternally united with the family can be at the root of such grief and still consistent with beliefs about the afterlife.)
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: We have three heavens and no hell.
We do too have a hell. It's just not an eternal-punishment kind of hell. It's a "suffer for a limited time and then get out" kind of hell.
And I agree, Tatiana, that we do believe in a majority of humans being saved in a kingdom of glory.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm reading Bushman now, and so that Universalist strain in the early church is something I just finished reading about. Again, because I tend toward universalism, I tend to notice those parts of our beliefs more and consider them more important, perhaps, than others.
All three degrees of glory are what I would consider heaven. They're all exalted states of being. I'm aiming for the highest possible but I'll be delighted if I make any of them.
Again, I believe what is sometimes taught, that everyone in the end will judge themselves and decide for themselves in which kingdom they are happiest. There's no bitter compulsion, unless it's the underlying reality that one can't continue to sin and also simultaneously reach the exalted state. "Save us in our sins" doesn't work, I mean. Only "Save us from our sins".
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:All three degrees of glory are what I would consider heaven.
Yes.
quote: They're all exalted states of being.
No, not according to the definition of "exalted" the church uses. They're all heaven; they're all glory; they're all salvation; but they're not all exaltation.
quote: "Save us in our sins" doesn't work, I mean. Only "Save us from our sins".
I really like this. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: We do too have a hell. It's just not an eternal-punishment kind of hell. It's a "suffer for a limited time and then get out" kind of hell.
We do too have an eternal-punishment kind of hell: outer darkness. We just don't believe that an awful lot of people (aside from the devil and his angels) are going there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:All three degrees of glory are what I would consider heaven.
I wouldn't.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: We do too have a hell. It's just not an eternal-punishment kind of hell. It's a "suffer for a limited time and then get out" kind of hell.
We do too have an eternal-punishment kind of hell: outer darkness. We just don't believe that an awful lot of people (aside from the devil and his angels) are going there.
Yes, we have that too. But I think some people miss the fact that other than outer darkness, we also believe in an actual hell where people will suffer for sins that they don't accept Christ's suffering for. As in D&C 76:84.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: All three degrees of glory are what I would consider heaven.
I wouldn't.
Really? What would you consider them?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm with MPH here, heaven to me means the fullness of salvation. It doesn't have to, there's nothing wrong with calling all three that but that's just not what the connotations are for me. As Elder McConkie pointed out with very limited exceptions whenever the scriptures or the latter day prophets refer to salvation they mean exaltation, they mean being saved in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial kingdom (even when I'm just paraphrasing him on an Internet forum I apparently still have to use his speech patterns! ) and not just being saved from eternal damnation in outer darkness. I guess the conversations moved on but I would like to point out that my original point was that not every one's going to be saved making no reference to the actual number, and I think that is a proved (LDS) point no matter where you draw the Heaven/Salvation line. If that's not agreed to I guess I could provide some references but I kind of think it's almost a given...
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Personally, I just consider them the three degrees of glory. The words heaven and hell are imprecise enough that there's not a lot of meaning, IMO, in saying that any of the kingdoms in LDS theology fall under either of the two umbrellas.
I see the case for calling them all heaven. I think that there's also case for calling the Telestial hell, or the Telestial + Terrestrial, especially if you consider hell to be the eternal perfect knowledge of how and why you failed to live up to your potential.
There's the idea that Telestial corresponds to some concepts of the traditional Christian hell, as it's peopled with folk who were murderers, liars, adulterers, etc. (sins of commission), the Terrestrial corresponds to some concepts of the traditional Christian heaven, as it's peopled with folk who didn't commit those sins of commission, and the Celestial is something above that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Really? What would you consider them?
I looked at this again and wanted to give it a better answer (as I didn't really answer it at all!) They are sometimes called "the three heavens" or otherwise referred to in a similar way. As such (like I said above) I'd hardly say it was wrong to refer to them as heaven, and I think I'd know what was meant by it. However, to me, Heaven implies all that God has to offer, the ultimate of salvation being both eternal and without bounds or limitations. If I say that I want to go to Heaven I have something specific in mind; or something more specific than "not damned". I mean fullness of glory, I mean eternal families, I mean eternal life. All of these exist in only one place (not that there's any confusion but I'd like to stress that I'm specifically referring to LDS doctrine, thank-you ). I would call the others "degree of glory", or refer to them by specific name. I wouldn't call them Hell (all though there's some evidence to suggest that the Prophet Joseph Smith and occasionally the scriptures referred to the Telestial kingdom as such, but that's not a battle I'm fully behind nor do I want to engage in it).
EDIT: of course MPH beat me to the punch. I have to say though: I've always been bothered by the idea that if a person does not inherit eternal life they will always be pained by knowing what could've been. It contradicts with my understanding of what the judgement of God is, with His perfect attribute of mercy, and with my view of the kingdoms of glory (especially as described in the so called "poetic version" of section 76). I'm not ruling it out and I understand where it comes from, but I personally can't agree that it is correct. It just didn't fit in with my understanding of the Gospel so it goes on the shelf with the rest of the stuff I don't think is true but I can't reject out of hand either.
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"especially if you consider hell to be the eternal perfect knowledge of how and why you failed to live up to your potential"
I thought that the kingdoms are meant to be the place where your potential is fully expressed. If potential remains unfulfilled it seems like further development/growth is in order.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Gosh, now someone beat my edit with a post!?! I'm outraged!
That's my thinking too, it just doesn't jive with the understanding I have of the judgment.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It just didn't fit in with my understanding of the Gospel so it goes on the shelf with the rest of the stuff I don't think is true but I can't reject out of hand either. [Smile]
Ah yes. I have a similar shelf, but with different things on it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I thought that the kingdoms are meant to be the place where your potential is fully expressed.
That's not my understanding.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I suppose it depends on what is meant by "potential", and when you take that measurement. If we didn't all have the potential to be saved in the fullest sense... it seems like a cruel joke to send us down here knowing that. On the other hand, if you say that assignment is based on what you're capable of achieving (another word with an at best iffy definition in this context) after you've gone through life and gotten to the point of being arraigned before God at the judgement seat... well that's the way I understand it. If you differ from this I'd love to know how you see it!
EDIT:
quote:Ah yes. I have a similar shelf, but with different things on it.
Your Skousen books?
Hobbes Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I thought that the kingdoms are meant to be the place where your potential is fully expressed.
That's not my understanding.
How do you square that with the presumable desire God has to see as many of his children exalted as possible?
In other words, what's the reasoning for a "time's up - you don't win"?
If the answer is that more time would not change things, I think that is equivalent to saying "potential met. Door #2, please."
If the answer rests on an Eternal principle that you get from 0 to Methuselah-many years of life to prove yourself, and then you're done (well, let's count purgatory time too)...it seems...arbitrary and silly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't have answers to your questions. Much like Hobbes said, it doesn't all jive in my mortal mind. Nevertheless, my understanding is that that's the way it it is, even if it doesn't all make sense to me.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I see. Thanks for responding. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Your Skousen books?
Those are on my shelf right next to Children of the Mind. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Hobbes, I understand and agree that not every last one makes it, just most. And as for the 1/3rd who didn't keep their first estate, I'm not sure there aren't some ways for them to change their minds at some point, ages and ages hence, as well. Though I agree with you that most likely, many of them have chosen and will choose not to go onward and upward.
I think about eternal progression, and about the huge distance there is between me and God right now, and so I fill up the aeons of progression it will most likely take me to be ready to build my own universe and people it with spirit children, with all sorts of thoughts and speculation. I believe that part of our training will be in reaching out to otherwise lost souls and trying to see if they will change their minds. When I think of the lost souls I know, an awful lot of them didn't really experience much love in their lives. My guess is that in all that time between now and our eventual exaltation, we'll be doing a whole lot of missionary work and outreach to see if we can make a connection with some of these people. As the work comes closer to fruition in this particular universe, think about how few will be left to reach, and how many there will be trying to reach them, and I bet we end up getting through to almost everyone eventually. But I don't know for sure. I mean, it's up to them. And some will likely choose to hold out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If everyone, everywhere were to be saved then a whole lot of people have wasted a whole lot of time; and here I'm think of Christ, the prophets and apostles of the Bible.
Let me just point out that, from my point of view, if everyone, everywhere were not to be saved, then a whole lot of people have wasted a whole lot of time; and here I'm thinking of omnipotent God. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yeah, but honestly Tom, would you want to end up in the same room with me? Really, I see your point on the difference in definitions of omnipotence and though I was aware that plenty of different understandings of the word existed I guess... it didn't occur to me to clarify. I suppose that happens to me, when something I believed when I was an atheist (or close to it) is the same as something I believed after I became LDS, I just assume it's a constant for everybody!
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Fair enough. I suppose if you take Christ's motivations into account, altering his message would indeed be to invalidate the time and effort he spent.
Jesus said that He came so that we might have life and have it abundantly. I think that means this life as well as the next.
I think that God can chose who is in and who is out. Rather, I think that God choses us all in and some chose themselves out. I do not think it is for us to do the chosing for other people or to think we can judge what God, in infinite love, has worked out for someone else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yeah, but honestly Tom, would you want to end up in the same room with me?
Leaving aside the obvious -- that I've been in the same room with you without too much trouble in the past -- it's worth noting that if the alternative is an eternity of Hell, you could have a horrible gastric condition in the afterlife and it'd probably be a wash.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:is an eternity of Hell, you could have a horrible gastric condition in the afterlife and it'd probably be a wash.
If you're going to get nit picky about my defenition of "omnipotent" I'm going to have to point out that you've previously corrected me on the fact that the Mormon "Hell" (and here I assume you mean kingdoms of glory below the highest) is actually quite pleasant.
quote:I think that God choses us all in and some chose themselves out. I do not think it is for us to do the chosing for other people or to think we can judge what God, in infinite love, has worked out for someone else.
Despite the fact that I agree with you, I'm assuming that you meant this as a response to the LDS practice of having Church leaders (Bishops and Stake Presidents) determine who can and can not enter the Temple. If that's not the case, I apologize, if it is here's my response:
What does it matter? I believe God has a plan for all of us, as well as an individual relationship with all of us that is not based in the slightest on what a leader in the Church does or does not think of us. In practice that leader should be influenced by God in their appraisals when it comes to specific issue (are they prepared to enter the Temple?) but I don't pretend that no mistake has ever been made. In any case, revelation to men and women on this Earth is central tenant of LDS theology and that's one of the ways it expresses itself. As a result what we practice does not line up with what you preach but I don't see how that makes it a problem that we are discriminating as to who joins the Church and then eventually enters the Temple to be endowed. The fact that God has delegated some authority to us here on this Earth (according to us of course ) is just an extension of the idea that God himself is discriminating as to who gets saved.
Of course there's the whole thing of does God choose or do we in which I'd come down on the latter's side but I don't think that was the point here.
Hobbes Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
From the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 28):
quote:7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.
8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't know how much discussion this merits, but this is one point in particular that I find very interesting/important about LDS beliefs: that all three kingdoms of heaven constitute a reward (and an improvement over mortal life). I commented to my mother that it is somewhat ironic to see this belief juxtaposed with the grief and anxiety that not living up to the highest standards often causes among LDS. (But I understand that a desire to remain eternally united with the family can be at the root of such grief and still consistent with beliefs about the afterlife.)
This leads to another odd contradiction, at least in my mind. The LDS church missionary schtick includes a lot of discussion about eternal families, yet it's only in the LDS version of heaven(s) that families have the potential to be split between different kingdoms, whereas most other christians expect everyone that meets some basic requirements to end up in the same heaven. I've never met a non-LDS Christian who didn't expect to be reunited with lost family members in heaven. There may not be a doctrine of eternal marriage, but there is an intuitive expectation of something like it, it seems.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:There may not be a doctrine of eternal marriage, but there is an intuitive expectation of something like it, it seems.
C.S. Lewis comments on this in A Grief Observed - it's the kind of thing Christians all want to believe and it's vaguely taught but there's no scriptural support for it anywhere.
Which is why I personally think the LDS missionary "schtick" is worth listening to. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Also, there's visitation between kingdoms. Slash has already promised me that if the LDS idea of the degrees of glory is correct, he'd teach me how to play D+D in the afterlife. I think he assumed I'd make it higher than him, though I don't assume any such thing! Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think in discussing the degrees of Heaven and the existence of Hell in Mormon theology, we are running into two problems. The first is semantics vs. tradition. There is absolutely something to other Christians who say Mormons use words that are different than what are traditionally or commonly used by others. I think we Mormons are arguing less against each other and more against the traditional concepts of Heaven and Hell without fully realizing it. This creates confusion where none actually exist. Who goes where and even when is not an issue. The Scriptures, particularly in conjunction with the D&C, are very clear on the subject. There are minor disagreements based on what is not known, but that leads to the second problem.
There is no codified theology in Mormonism. Yes, there is a corpus of teachings that constitute Mormonism and revelations answering specific questions. I do believe, however, that Mormonism is more of an individually self-made theology. As has been proven here, if nowhere else, you ask a Mormon a question and you will get several answers. That is another contradiction of Mormonism, and one anti-Mormons can easily get away with (i.e., those trying to prove Mormonism wrong without honest respect). It isn't because Mormons don't know or have basics of the religion. Rather, because Mormonism is allowing for personal interpretations of doctrines. The theology is as much what we want it to be as it is what it is.
The above means that I can agree and disagree at th same time with everyone. There are parameters (and 9 times out of 10 it is related to non-belief than to belief) and sometimes people go beyond those. Essentially, I think Mormons still don't know how to talk to the world because they try to talk in the language of the world. On the other hand, if Mormons don't talk in the language of the world; those who don't understand Mormonism get easily confused.
This reminds me of what Jesus said, to paraphrase: I talk in parables and a few understand, I talk openly and many get angry because they can't take it. My ramblings also remind me of Joseph Smith who said he loves contradictions because it is in contemplating them where the truth exists.
Anyway, carry on if you want. I think you are all right together and therefore won't add much more to the discussion.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I thought that the kingdoms are meant to be the place where your potential is fully expressed.
That's not my understanding.
How do you square that with the presumable desire God has to see as many of his children exalted as possible?
In other words, what's the reasoning for a "time's up - you don't win"?
If the answer is that more time would not change things, I think that is equivalent to saying "potential met. Door #2, please."
If the answer rests on an Eternal principle that you get from 0 to Methuselah-many years of life to prove yourself, and then you're done (well, let's count purgatory time too)...it seems...arbitrary and silly.
I wanted to address scifibum’s questions here with some of my own thoughts.
Like any loving parent, God would indeed like to have as many of his children succeed as possible. This mortal life is designed to start us on that path. We use our time on Earth to get our bodies, endure trials, overcome temptations, and complete specific work we need to do in order to be able to become like God and eventually live like him—things we could only do on Earth.
I think God gives us the time on Earth he knows we need to accomplish what we, personally, need to accomplish. In other words, everyone has the opportunities they need in this life. Those who are born and then die a few hours later—that was all they needed. Those who live to very old age had all the time they needed as well—and perhaps were needed to do good for others during their time. Obviously we have complete freedom to choose how we live our life and what we do with the opportunities we are presented with.
To turn the corner—how does this square with God’s desire to have his children succeed? I think he could have all of us do just that. The idea was proposed to him, in the Mormon version of what happened before this life. He rejected that idea, knowing that it would cost us our freedom to choose. Instead, he provided a way in which we could get back on the path to him whenever we inevitably strayed from it or were taken from it, through our own choices or those of others. He wants us to return to him—there are multiple places in the scriptures where he says his hand is outstretched toward us all the time—but he leaves it up to us whether to take his hand.
This is doctrine according to afr, but the universe (the realm in which we exist, comprising the observable physical universe as well) has immutable laws that God operates within. Thus our need to pass through this life and all its troubles in order to become like God, instead of just letting God do it. I think it makes sense—becoming a world-class pianist doesn’t come without grueling practice and hard-won discipline. I think we are much more than we can see of ourselves here in this life, not just physical beings with lots of potential. We are part of a grander structure than we can perceive right now.
So when we die, there is still a lot of progression to do. We can’t do all of it in this life. We do choose what state we are in in the next life through our preparation in this life. But progression never ends. I don’t think it does. There is no “time’s up” in this sense, although our path back to God may be longer. I do hope we get more perspective on this life after we pass on.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think that's a very hopeful (in the best sense) view, afr. Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Rather, because Mormonism is allowing for personal interpretations of doctrines. The theology is as much what we want it to be as it is what it is.
Hmmm.... I see what you're saying but I think it's liable to come across wrong. Phrasing it this way makes it sound like a postmodern take on religion - "get out of it whatever you want; take your own meaning."
Whereas personal revelation is an important part of our beliefs, there IS most definitely an absolute truth. The prophets would all be able to give authoritative statements on this absolute truth, and it is possible, for me as an independent member, to be wrong.
I think the important key here is that we believe in a "line upon line" way of learning truth. We each, individually, have to learn it for ourselves, but we each are understanding different things at different times. We can listen to each other's ideas, but ultimately we need to pray and find out for ourselves if it's true. Even if I really like what afr said in this discussion, for example, it's my responsibility to read and pray and ask God if it's true. Even when the prophet makes an authoritative statement, it's my job to pray & reconcile myself to what an authorized leader of the Lord has told me.
I think that's what a lot of this is boiling down to. Kate is raising some objections based on the fact that it's not up to any of us to decide who is and isn't righteous. And this is true - judge not unrighteously. But we would say that there are authorized representatives of the Lord who DO have the right to discern people's worthiness for certain purposes. These are still men, and they're still fallible, but they have the responsibility and authority to make certain judgments. It's significant to note that they don't hold this office for their entire lives - your bishop can give you a temple recommend, but next week he might not be your bishop any more and he won't have the right or the responsibility to do that again.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
****************SPOILERS!!!!!***********
This thread has moved beyond Big Love, but I thought it worth mentioning that in tonight's episode we found out that the letter validating polygamy was a fake. So it looks like they've eliminated the plot line that was truly antagonistic to the LDS church.
For any that watch the show- what a fantastic episode! I was prepared to be thoroughly annoyed by the Nicki's daughter plot line but I think they've handled it in a way that I'm actually excited about it. And Bill establishing a new church right as Roman's being killed... well I've always thought they were setting him up to be prophet and it looks like they're moving forward with that plot line. Next season should be interesting.
[ March 22, 2009, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Ah! My eyes! Dude. I hadn't seen it yet.... What the heck. Why would you do that? Oh man, that is infuriating.
I am officially mad at you.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The whole forgery subplot was interesting; it roughly paralleled the actual Mark Hoffmann episode, down to the bombs.
Bill's attempts to buy the church off struck me as fairly implausible, among other reasons and not least because BYU's rolling in money. They wouldn't need his 5%.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
TL,
I'm really sorry. I should have included the spoiler warning.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I just don't think it's too cool. If I thought they were still objective, I wouldn't actually care about the depiction of the temple ceremony.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
I've never cared much for Calvinist doctrine, but I'll also admit to knowing little beyond the basic "predestinationalism" (yes I can make up my own words, want to fight about it?) doctrine and from the also very little I know about the man: his drive impresses me. ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
I have to say though: I've always been bothered by the idea that if a person does not inherit eternal life they will always be pained by knowing what could've been. It contradicts with my understanding of what the judgement of God is, with His perfect attribute of mercy, and with my view of the kingdoms of glory (especially as described in the so called "poetic version" of section 76). I'm not ruling it out and I understand where it comes from, but I personally can't agree that it is correct. It just didn't fit in with my understanding of the Gospel so it goes on the shelf with the rest of the stuff I don't think is true but I can't reject out of hand either. ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)