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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.) Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormons aren't monolithic. You likely won't get consensus from us; I'm never going to agree that non-members are inherently unclean.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
beleaguered, I think that the conflict Samprimary is talking about is between the answers he's received on this forum.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* I don't see anything wrong with using the word "unclean" here. All it really means is "less special."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You could also subsitute "Except scrapbooking."
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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.
