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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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...?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
(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. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
