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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The kingdom of heaven is all about clean and unclean and worthy and unworthy and who is the most speciallist.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
All this talk about who is worthy and who is unworthy and not living "appropriately" and being unclean was making me itch.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: It would be nice if you expressed that directly instead of lying about another group's beliefs.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
