- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just last month there was another Temple dedicated here in Canada, and anyone wishing to watch the televised dedication had to hold a temple recommend. A young adult I know unfortunately did not qualify for his recommend after giving unsatisfactory answers during his recommend interview. When asked who he prayed to, he replied, “Grandpa.” Quite the peculiar answer, until you factor in that he is currently functioning at the mental state of about a 5 year old. If the age of accountability (set by the church) is 8, why can’t a 5 year old get a temple recommend to watch a dedication? Should they even need a recommend, as they are not accountable for their sins? Are they not – for arguments sake – essentially blameless and pure? Having not been to such an event, are children even welcome? I know children can attend the temple for sibling weddings and to get sealed to their parents… I’m not suggesting that he should be allowed to go through the temple for Endowment – he wouldn’t really understand what was going on, never mind the covenants he was making, or the ordinances he was receiving.
… Thoughts?
I do not believe that “who do you pray to” is even on the temple interview. So, he wasn’t even given a proper interview, IMO. I think his answer was very sweet. I hope he wasn’t too upset or traumatized by the rejection. Children and persons who have not been endowed are not allowed to attend sealings inside the temple. They may only be in attendance at their own live sealing to parents.
I, personally, think that going from an open temple to a closed temple was a very negative thing. The Kirtland temple was open to the public. The Nauvoo temple was GOING to be open to the public in the same manner according to statements I’ve read from Joseph Smith. I believe that temple dedications should be open to everyone. Obviously they are not.
If your friend functions at the level of a 5 year old I have to wonder why he was baptised. I say this because my understanding of the gospel is that he would be “unaccountable” and fully covered by the Atonement. My sister is 30 and unaccountable (she functions at baby level mentally and physically). No baptism needed, not that it would be possible anyway.
It seems the majority of events held for members at the Conference Center in SLC are only for those who are 8 and older. I think it’s mainly a reverence issue. They do not want young children causing distractions. Last year I brought all my children downtown to watch their older sister perform in the Draper Temple celebration / dance festival. I was turned away at the door because not all my kids were over the age of 8. We all missed the performance that she spent months practicing for. We were all disappointed, but I guess the lesson was I should have read the fine print on the tickets that were given to our family. Cookie wrote:I’m not suggesting that he should be allowed to go through the temple for Endowment – he wouldn’t really understand what was going on, never mind the covenants he was making, or the ordinances he was receiving.
I kind of think it has mostly to do with this aspect. If they aren’t really going to understand what is going on, the church leaders probably look at it as they don’t need to be there.Having been to some of these…I don’t think someone at a 5yr old level would get anything out of it. What they would get more out of is if they open the temple up to the public as an open house prior to dedicating it…let them walk through that and they would really get more out of that experience, IMO.
I think the secrecy leads to conspiracy theories frankly. Maybe they’re afraid of people ridiculing the ceremonies. I’m skeptical of this idea of adults functioning at the level of five year olds, which I have heard about people with Down’s Syndrome, partly because these people have had more life experience, and are also different from five year olds in other ways.
Since it was all televised, I do wonder what the point of excluding him was. It’s a difficult one. Some six and seven year olds are accountible, IMHO, but some people at sixteen and seventeen aren’t and some sixty and seventy year olds don’t use their minds enough…
This…
just me wrote:I do not believe that “who do you pray to” is even on the temple interview. So, he wasn’t even given a proper interview, IMO.
and this…
SamBee wrote:I’m skeptical of this idea of adults functioning at the level of five year olds, which I have heard about people with Down’s Syndrome, partly because these people have had more life experience, and are also different from five year olds in other ways.
Makes me wonder if the situation was dealt with properly. There isn’t really guidelines when it comes to people who have mental and sometimes physical disabilities.We had a deaf man in our ward that the bishop wouldn’t let bless the sacrament. He didn’t see the point in him signing it and someone else interpreting. I grew up with a girl who had Cerebral Palsy (I think) her mind was completely there but she couldn’t speak. Would she be denied going to a dedication because she physically could not answer temple recommend questions. My niece in some ways has a level of a 4 yrs old and in other ways like an 8 yrs old and in other ways like the 12yrs old she is. How is she going to be judged by church leaders?
I do not think that a temple recommend should be required anyways. I think that preventing people from experiencing a temple dedication is very unchristian like. If the church is so concerned about the missionary effort in North America having the dedication be an opportunity for everyone to feel the “spirit” would me much more effective then putting the guilt trip on leaders to meet quotas.
It’s nice to see another fellow Canadian on the board BTW
Footing
Not letting a deaf man bless the sacrament simply is wrong. Period. End of story. I would have asked the congregation to open their eyes during the prayer in order to “hear” the blessing – after spending time in all the meetings for every age group teaching everyone to understand the sacrament in sign language. Sometimes very good, sincere, well-meaning people really get in the way of the Gospel.
Signing is a language in its own right, just as much as Swahili or Urdu. It is not the same as finger spelling, which does exist, but is dependent on a spoken language. Sign language has its own grammar, dialects/accents, slang and abbreviations. The man was also “slow”. I’m not saying that to be disrespectful, I’m just not sure what other terminology to use. I think he may have had other learning disabilities. I don’t think he had asked to do it, it was just something that had been discussed in PEC. I think that if he would have gone to the Bishop and asked to it may have been different but I don’t know. I do remember being a bit shocked at his reasoning. The point is that there is no guidelines (that I know of) so Bishop’s can kind of just make their own decisions when it comes to people with disabilities. The Bishop was very supportive in other ways. When those knowing sign moved out of the ward he just called someone else and challenged them to learn sign. The guy called (a friend of ours) was one of the best things that had happened to our deaf friend. The bishop even got missionaries who knew sign in our ward and set up a class where people had a chance to learn sign so they could communicate with him. That’s wonderful to hear, fmof. Thanks for adding that detail.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.