Strict Temple Requirements – good or bad idea?

Yes, it’s the temple where the control really happens. It’s there that you get the meatier convenants. To be an unendowed member is relatively easy in terms of effort. I think you can hold callings without paying tithing, for example.

I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith saw that people tended to wane in commitment after baptism, so they needed an ongoing carrot/challenge/goal to keep them responding and committed throughout their lives– so he came up with the temple, endowmnet, and the new and everlasting covenant, and also the infinite and seemingly selfless task of helping your ancestors get access to saving ordinances — all as motivators to heighten commitment in the Church.

Should the commandments be strict? I agree with others that if the standards are too strict, then few people would go. They would stop paying their tithing, which would hurt the Church coffers. Many would become lukewarm Mormons as a result. I know how I feel in performance reviews at work when the standards are made so high I can’t meet them. I deal with it by lessening my desire to do a good performance review — just focus on those things that are right and good, and do my best.

This is similar to the thread I started on whether home teaching should be a temple worthiness requirement. Almost everyone here thought it was a stupid idea….

This may seem odd coming from someone that’s basically a heathen but I don’t think the requirements are too strict and if they were made more lenient I think it would cast doubt on the seriousness of the temple. I remember going to a Sunstone Northwest and hearing Jan Ships speak about 10 years ago. One of her main points was that the emphasis of the church was for members to become temple attending as a key part of membership and that it coincided with the decision to expand the number of temples and their size.

Yes, it’s the temple where the control really happens. It’s there that you get the meatier convenants.

I sometimes wonder if Joseph Smith saw that people tended to wane in commitment after baptism, so they needed an ongoing carrot/challenge/goal to keep them responding and committed throughout their lives– so he came up with the temple, endowmnet, and the new and everlasting covenant, and also the infinite and seemingly selfless task of helping your ancestors get access to saving ordinances — all as motivators to heighten commitment in the Church.

Should the commandments be strict? I agree with others that if the standards are too strict, then few people would go. They would stop paying their tithing, which would hurt the Church coffers. Many would become lukewarm Mormons as a result.

I’m not very comfortable with the term “control” because I’ve not felt that anyone was trying to pull strings. I’ve never had a priesthood leader that I didn’t think had my best interests at heart. I guess the only exception might be ET Benson in his anticommunist days and his rants in GC.

We certainly have created a caste system within the church. Those who are “worthy” to attend the temple, and those who “ARE NOT worthy” to attend the temple. Is that a bad thing?

I don’t see it as a caste system because you can’t tell who has a recommend or not since even those with recommends can be hit or miss with temple attendance. I suspect there are some that will keep a recommend just so they can attend weddings but otherwise don’t participate. I wish I could remember the source for this but I remember reading that churches that became less rigorous and demanding tended to lose membership over time. As to strictness of standards I don’t see them getting any stricter other than when someone takes it upon himself to ask other questions. (Side note: an acquaintance told me about a temple recommend interview where she was asked if she masturbated. This is a lady who was a single college professor. Her answer was something to the effect of yes don’t you? Evidently he mumbled something that sounded like yes and went back to the standard questions.) And temple attendance is up likely based on the availability of temples now to more people. My feeling about the reason for the temple is that Joseph Smith at key points seemed to feel the need to add charisma and do things that would make people feel set apart and above the other. I think he had to keep making it more in a number of ways rather that letting things plateau.

However, there is one instance in which I feel temple requirements should be jettisoned… that being temple marriage. In such a scenario, this would allow non-members to attend, if they were reasonably dressed.

I have a real dilemma with this issue. I have friends who invited me to their weddings, and have known me for nearly twenty years. However, I think if they couldn’t come to my temple wedding, it would be like a slap in the face to them, not to mention family and friends.

Couldn’t agree more.

I don’t know if this happens elsewhere, but in my stake it’s become common practice for members of the ward and stake leadership to ask the full set of temple recommend questions before extending callings. This has been a pattern even when I’ve been extended callings that were essentially made-up, like Ward Blood Specialist. I’ve always been able to answer honestly that I’m worthy, but I’ve been tempted to give a contrary answer just to see if they’d extend the calling anyway. I’ve seen other situations, especially on my mission, where even non-members had callings like assistant scoutmaster. I wonder if the full worthiness test is a luxury in heavily Mormon areas where leaders have a surplus of willing and able-bodied volunteers to choose from.

Cadence wrote:

Until they lighten up on the temple requirements everything else to me seems pointless. To be a good TBM you must attend the temple. To attend the temple you must live by a strict set of requirements or lie. So we can do more mainstream things from a marketing standpoint but the real control is administered through the temple.

Okay. I think that is true. We certainly have created a caste system within the church. Those who are “worthy” to attend the temple, and those who “ARE NOT worthy” to attend the temple. Is that a bad thing?

I think that MANY people, more so everyday, have decided that if they are going to be relegated to “second class” citizens within the church, they would just as well not have anything to do with it. Seriously, if one KNOWS they will not be getting a temple recommend anytime soon because of the “strict set of requirements” how long do they stick around? And how do we expect them to do all the other stuff like church callings etc. Some may say they need this system to weed out the “wheat from the tares.” I disagree. This kind of mentality is NOT good for the individuals, and, IMO, not good for organized religion.

I think these requirements are a great idea if your primary objective is mostly just to control people’s behavior and separate your loyal followers from everyone else. It has worked like a charm this way from the Church’s perspective. Basically, the temple symbolizes what may be the Church’s most effective sales pitch, the idea of eternal families. So they’ve capitalized on this by attaching a price tag to this promise.

This is all fine and good as long as everyone involved continues to believe in this but the problem is that if one spouse ever changes their mind about the Church it can cause a lot of unnecessary pain. Now members can’t just worry about their own salvation they think they need their spouse to believe the same exact thing faithfully to the end. I wish the Church leaders would think more about the effect of these doctrines in cases like this where everything doesn’t go as planned because it seems like this is happening more nowadays than it used to. I don’t see how telling people they are unworthy if they drink a cup of coffee or don’t pay 10% of their income as tithing really fits with the idea that the worth of souls is great in the sight of God. It just doesn’t make any sense to me but I guess there’s not really much I can do about it other than not going to the temple.

I don’t see how telling people they are unworthy if they drink a cup of coffee or don’t pay 10% of their income as tithing really fits with the idea that the worth of souls is great in the sight of God. It just doesn’t make any sense to me but I guess there’s not really much I can do about it other than not going to the temple.

I guess you just have to decide how important a cup of coffee is or if the church is worth donating to.

Cadence, if you don’t really believe in the concept of the temple at all, why do you care about the requirements to attend? Would not having to pay tithing to attend get you there more often? Or, as you have said, is it that you just don’t want to pay tithing to attend temple sealings?

I pay tithing because I believe in the principle of tithing. I attend the temple because I believe in the principle of the temple – particularly the concept of having my heart knit to those who went before me.

Sure, I don’t think temple ordinances actually are necessary for that to happen – or to gain exaltation. I believe God will do that regardless of our participation in the temple ceremonies. However, I really, really like the symbolism of sacrificing for those who have gone before – of having earthly ordinances that show our acceptance of a universal Atonement – of having a place set apart from the world for those who want symbolically and perhaps literally to enter the presence of God – etc.

If it feels like a control mechanism to you, then don’t go. I don’t see it that way, so I go.

The caste system comment strikes me as someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too. I’d love to get booster club access to the football team too, but I can’t afford it. Perhaps I could self-categorize myself as being in a lower caste, but am I really? If I really wanted all the access, I suppose I could do something about it and join the booster club, but it’s just not that important to me. I can still enjoy the football game without booster membership.

Here is the problem with this thought, IMO. MANY, if not MOST of LDS members feel that regular temple attendance is ESSENTIAL for personal salvation. The church TEACHES this – that the only way to receive EXALTATION is through temple ordinances. Can we agree on that point? Not that it is “true”, but it is what the “church” teachers.

So what have we done? Exactly what Spock said – we have developed a system that requires one TO PAY TO GET TO HEAVEN. According to the current teachings of the LDS chruch, ONE MUST PAY THE THE ORGANIZATION 10% to receive salvation and “get to heaven.” How is this NOT a caste system?

Sure, I guess anyone COULD go along and pay to get to heaven and join the “upper crust” of society. If one wants to conform and PAY, and follow the other strict “commandments”, than one is welcome in heaven -the higher class of membership. If not, you can go to church and belong to the second tier of membership in terrestrial kingdom, Someone tell me where I’m wrong. Is this NOT what the church teaches?