Really, why do we put so much emphasis on temples?

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

So you think that the guy shouldn’t have sacrificed as he did for four years so that he could go to the temple? Or are you saying the sacrifice was a valid expression of faith and values, but Pres. Monson shouldn’t have ‘highlighted’ the story, thus officially sanctioning such freewill choices?

While this was not directed at me, I’ll chime in with an affirmative on both points. Of course it’s not my place to put a value on the sacrifices and experiences of others, but if I had sacrificed four years of life with my family for a trip to the temple, I’d have been pretty miffed.

Regarding the continuous relating of ‘faith promoting’ anecdotes, I grow tired of hearing them. While they may have value in and of themselves, they are often so extravagant or even ridiculous that their application is limited. But the membership, upon hearing them, apparently feel an obligation to emulate these in their lives, as if the ultimate goal is to live a fantasy life made up of one faith-promoting story after another. Well, so-and-so left his family for FOUR YEARS so that he could take his family to the temple. The least I can do is (insert extravagant and possibly unnecessary sacrifice here). Or more often, they won’t do it and will simply feel guilty as the reality of their lives slowly diverges from the fantasy one. I think it’s unhealthy. Ours is a culture of anecdotes and quotations. Blech.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

cwald wrote:

So, I like the comments so far, but what about my second question. You know, when I heard that story about the guy who left his family for four years to save money to take his fam to the temple, I thought, sure, this is perhaps a faith promoting story to some LDS members. But to me, it was sad and just another example of unnecessary sacrifice and unrealistic expectations the church places on the members (I put that in just for you DA 🙂 ) It was not faith promoting to me in the least.

Why do you think it was unnecessary? or unrealistic? Why was it not faith promoting to you? These questions are rhetorical, your answer to them is valuable only to yourself, internally. They are extremely worth time & effort in meditation and pondering within yourself. Why do others feel otherwise? Could it have a spiritual component, rather than a logical or “convenience of living in the USofA” one?

The reason it is unnecessary and unrealistic in my opinion is because it looks to me like the Church doesn’t really have the knowledge and power they claim they do to ever be able to deliver on some of their promises.

Ok, if you don’t believe God inspired Joseph to ‘restore’ the Church(and a boat-load of other stuff), then that makes sense. But many LDS *do* so believe. For them, it can easily make sense. And I know from my own experience that having that belief, and acting and sacrificing for that belief, can and does result in powerful spiritual experiences. For me, that check was paid in full. So while these sacrifices can be characterized as ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unrealistic’ by some, they can still bring to the individual of faith a powerful, life-changing encounter with God. And I’m not even talking about the endowment, here. That’s a whole ‘nother level of pay-off, for me.

So if someone and their family is willing to sacrifice something that another person is not, is it unreasonable that they each get the varying, even polar results their mindset and level of commitment has produced? I think not. And neither should second-guess or look down on the other.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In other words, their mouth has written checks that can’t ever be cashed as far as we know.

Well, yeah. Good qualification there. I’d say there’s a lot we don’t know.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

They are basically saying that being obedient Mormons is the only path to salvation and the only way to have an eternal family and the temple ordinances and covenants are a big part of these exclusive claims. Sure there is the whole spirit world contingency plan but I don’t think most TBMs would want to count on that; they want some assurance that they are already righteous and sure enough the Church is ready to issue them a TR as long as they agree to believe and do exactly what they are told.

There is a lot of personal satisfaction in certainty, yes. And while I don’t personally believe the Church is correct in all its exclusivity claims, nevertheless I *do* believe that the Gospel as taught in the Church and in the temple can lead the membership into a beautiful discipleship of love, hope, charity, and faith. As Eckartshausen’s Cloud Over the Sanctuary beautifully explains, the exoteric Church is only the introductory point into the internal or esoteric Church of the Firstborn. One should never mistake the one for the other, even if others around us do.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Sure it might be a very meaningful experience for some members to go to the temple similar to the way it is a meaningful experience for some people to climb mountains when they don’t really need to.

Let us definitively determine whether it’s needed or not. Shall we? *Can* we?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

However, what if this man in Thomas S. Monson’s story that worked for several years away from his family to be able to afford to take them all to the temple mostly did all this simply because he believed all the Church’s promises but then it turns out that the afterlife is significantly different than the way the Church says or maybe this life is all there is?

I guarantee that “the afterlife is significantly different” from what the Church teaches. In many ways. And if this life is all there is, then shouldn’t we decide to enjoy it and relish it and be happy? How are we doing that when we place our judgements upon others who sacrifice in ways that we feel is foolish? Does that really mean that *they* are foolish, or that *we* are? Don’t they have that right, to seek for, to find, happiness?

If they find it in a way that makes no sense whatever to us, is that a problem? Why so?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In that case, I don’t see how you can realistically view this extreme sacrifice as much of anything but mostly pointless, tragic, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

I don’t think that’s the only valid viewpoint possible, obviously.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

For the record, I don’t have a problem with them building more temples in places like the Amazon so members there don’t have to travel as far to get to a temple anymore but what I don’t understand at all is the need for at least 5 different temples in Salt Lake and Davis County alone. I really doubt the overall attendance has gone up that much from when they only had the Salt Lake, Ogden, Provo, and Jordan River temples to serve the entire Wasatch Front.

The volume of members going through is incredible. I lived in the Jordan River district until the Oquirrh Mountain temple was built – and it was way too crowded. Not only that, but think of the blessing for the added temple workers. Being immersed in it as they are, the possibility for them to actually see the ‘hidden’ light is greatly enhanced. The cloud upon the sanctuary parts and reveals that light which cannot be expressed by mortal tongue.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It looks almost like they are trying to force feed members/investigators the idea of temples as some kind of marketing campaign. I don’t really mean that as any kind of cynical bottom-line money making scheme but simply that they think this is one thing that Mormonism has to offer that makes it different from other sects so they want to emphasize this as a major selling point but personally I think they’ve gone overboard with this and they should probably tone it down with some of the temple hype before it comes back to bite them.

Mormonism is the *only* Christian church I know of that has a built-in mystery school(the temple) associated with it. It is and will bite the Church, certainly, someday. I think it’s only a matter of time before the temple and how it came to be and what it involves becomes well known, despite obfuscation and deceptive books such as the recent one by Matthew Brown. What a disapointment *that* was. I don’t think any temple attending Mormon can fully explain it without getting dangerously close to violating their temple covenants. (added later: ok, nobody I know of can “fully explain” it — at all.)

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Wow.

Where to begin? I guess all I will say is everyone on this board is welcome their opinion.

If a guy forsaking his duty to his family, and giving up four years of his life away from his wife and kids, just so he can earn MONEY so he can go and get his endowment at a temple, that could just as easily be performed in a “dedicated” basement of a Stake Center, is considered a faith promoting story by most members – than I am in the wrong church.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

…then I am in the wrong church.

You may be on to something.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

cwald wrote:

…then I am in the wrong church.

You may be on to something.

Yep. And it does disturb me.

[Anonymous]

Let me just say that we are walking a very slippery slope when we ask others to honor our different choices, beliefs and sacrifices (and even, hopefully, value them) if we aren’t willing to do the same for their sincere, deeply held choices, beliefs and sacrifices.

Some here might not agree with the example of sacrifice cited, but it absolutely might have (and almost surely did) mean a LOT to the people who performed it – and I am willing to bet that it actually did bring the family closer together **because it meant the world to them**. If we can’t understand that different things work for different people and really do produce wonderful people in that process, we are standing on very, very thin ice when we bemoan others’ inability to understand and accept us and what works for us.

For the record, I absolutely LOVE the temple for what I get from it. I understand completely why not everyone does, and I don’t begrudge their not loving it as I do, but there is an elemental problem if I comdemn what works for them (not attending) just because it doesn’t work for me or because I might not understand totally why it works for them.

Nobody has to love the temple to be Mormon – or even love it to hold an active recommend and attend it periodically. However, I am really uncomfortable blasting the sincere sacrifices of others whose dedication to SOMETHING that was important to them probably exceeds my own dedication to what is important to me – and remembering that comparison is important to me, even if I have to sacrifice greatly in a way to remember it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Some here might not agree with the example of sacrifice cited, but it absolutely might have (and almost surely did) mean a LOT to the people who performed it.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that that particular family made a bad choice. At least I haven’t, though my personal opinion is that maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t. It’s a story. I don’t know these people. It might not even be a true story for all I know. Speaking for myself, my problem is that since this was presented at GC, this anecdote now sets the standard. No difficulty, up to and including the physical separation of my family for four years, is a good excuse for not getting my butt to the temple. Of course that wasn’t stated explicitly, but we all know how this works.

[Anonymous]

“HiJolly

Quote:

Being immersed in it as they are, the possibility for them to actually see the ‘hidden’ light is greatly enhanced. The cloud upon the sanctuary parts and reveals that light which cannot be expressed by mortal tongue.

Sorry, but you lost me there. Experiences that people describe in the temple seem to have as much to do with their state of mind and level of expectation than where. T. Edgar Lyon once said that the experiences in Kirtland may have had something to do with prolonged fasting followed by beer. Maybe the temple is a “thin place” but as far as a light that cannot be expressed by mortal tongue, I don’t know. When I went through the temple for the first time in 1964, the officiator was Mr. Miles, my 9th grade science teacher who used to routinely shake the crap out of anyone who made trouble in his class. It comes to mind whenever I go. Maybe that’s why I’ve not been able to see the ‘hidden light’ that you mention. It’s what we make of it and not so much what it is. IMHO

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

Speaking for myself, my problem is that since this was presented at GC, this anecdote now sets the standard.

But we all know that the story is not ‘standard’, or it never would have been mentioned. We know it is *exceptional*, meaning, a drastic exception from what most people do. So I sincerely hope no one takes it as a new standard of some sort – how sad that would be! I think only the uptight trying-too-hard people are going to make that mistake. I find that those who try too hard are living frankly miserable lives, and are quite hard to live with — both the ones with literal faith, and the ones who question faith. There’s a couple in my own family like that —- nice, but not so much really…

doug wrote:

No difficulty, up to and including the physical separation of my family for four years, is a good excuse for not getting my butt to the temple. Of course that wasn’t stated explicitly, but we all know how this works.

You may be right but I sincerely hope not. What a sad thing!

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

“HiJolly

Quote:

Being immersed in it as they are, the possibility for them to actually see the ‘hidden’ light is greatly enhanced. The cloud upon the sanctuary parts and reveals that light which cannot be expressed by mortal tongue.

Sorry, but you lost me there. Experiences that people describe in the temple seem to have as much to do with their state of mind and level of expectation than where. T. Edgar Lyon once said that the experiences in Kirtland may have had something to do with prolonged fasting followed by beer. Maybe the temple is a “thin place” but as far as a light that cannot be expressed by mortal tongue, I don’t know. When I went through the temple for the first time in 1964, the officiator was Mr. Miles, my 9th grade science teacher who used to routinely shake the crap out of anyone who made trouble in his class. It comes to mind whenever I go. Maybe that’s why I’ve not been able to see the ‘hidden light’ that you mention. It’s what we make of it and not so much what it is. IMHO

I think there’s a LOT of truth to that, GBSmith. Really.

I have literally seen the light while in the temple, and I know it was because of my state of mind (and a few other things, but sadly, not beer). 😈

My studies of the human mind (brain, etc), combined with my personal, anecdotal experiences have settled the issue for me. Subjectivity is required for spiritual life.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Let me just say that we are walking a very slippery slope when we ask others to honor our different choices, beliefs and sacrifices (and even, hopefully, value them) if we aren’t willing to do the same for their sincere, deeply held choices, beliefs and sacrifices.

Yes, that rings true — we shouldn’t judge others the way we ourselves have felt judged.

However, I think the point is that stories like this man who left his family for four years to get money for the temple, as lore to be perpetuated in GC, and to mold our culture (that’s what stories do, says all the major leadership books) isn’t healthy for many people.

Have you ever known someone so extreme in their beliefs they hurt others around them? When such sacrifice is not even required for salvation? I know one person, his name is SilentDawning, 28 years of age, who alienated his natural, non-member family over his temple marriage since all the pressure was to get married in the temple first.

The temple president and others who advocated this practice have long forgotten who I am, for sure, but the memory remains with my family. And I still feel the effects of that today. If any GA’s read this, please consider a kinder, gentler approach to non-member families that don’t force you to alienate your non-member family for the sake of the temple.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Some here might not agree with the example of sacrifice cited, but it absolutely might have (and almost surely did) mean a LOT to the people who performed it – and I am willing to bet that it actually did bring the family closer together **because it meant the world to them**.

I served a mission in Chile. I am particularly close to one family that I was able to baptize. I love them and refer to them as my Chilean family.

Sometime after my mission they set a goal to go to the temple. They did bake sales and other fund raisers with the ward. I remember thinking that with exchange rates being what they were, I could just send them the money. But I felt then and I feel now that it would have been the wrong thing to do; that it would have deprived this amazing family of the experience to pull and work together for a common goal.

I don’t have all the answers, but I tend to agree with Ray that the meaning and relative value of personal sacrifice is best measured in the heart of the sacrificer.

doug wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

Some here might not agree with the example of sacrifice cited, but it absolutely might have (and almost surely did) mean a LOT to the people who performed it.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that that particular family made a bad choice. At least I haven’t, though my personal opinion is that maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t. It’s a story. I don’t know these people. It might not even be a true story for all I know. Speaking for myself, my problem is that since this was presented at GC, this anecdote now sets the standard. No difficulty, up to and including the physical separation of my family for four years, is a good excuse for not getting my butt to the temple. Of course that wasn’t stated explicitly, but we all know how this works.

I also see your point Doug. How can we cite the example of exceptional people doing exceptional things in the name of faith without making others feel like lesser contributors, particularly those that are already partly disenfranchised and are just hanging on as it is?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

The temple president and others who advocated this practice have long forgotten who I am, for sure, but the memory remains with my family. And I still feel the effects of that today. If any GA’s read this, please consider a kinder, gentler approach to non-member families that don’t force you to alienate your non-member family for the sake of the temple.

Amen.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…Some here might not agree with the example of sacrifice cited, but it absolutely might have (and almost surely did) mean a LOT to the people who performed it…If we can’t understand that different things work for different people and really do produce wonderful people in that process, we are standing on very, very thin ice when we bemoan others’ inability to understand and accept us and what works for us.

Nobody has to love the temple to be Mormon – or even love it to hold an active recommend and attend it periodically. However, I am really uncomfortable blasting the sincere sacrifices of others whose dedication to SOMETHING that was important to them probably exceeds my own dedication to what is important to me

HiJolly wrote:

So if someone and their family is willing to sacrifice something that another person is not, is it unreasonable that they each get the varying, even polar results their mindset and level of commitment has produced? I think not. And neither should second-guess or look down on the other.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

However, what if this man in Thomas S. Monson’s story that worked for several years away from his family to be able to afford to take them all to the temple mostly did all this simply because he believed all the Church’s promises but then it turns out that the afterlife is significantly different than the way the Church says or maybe this life is all there is?

I guarantee that “the afterlife is significantly different” from what the Church teaches. In many ways. And if this life is all there is, then shouldn’t we decide to enjoy it and relish it and be happy? How are we doing that when we place our judgements upon others who sacrifice in ways that we feel is foolish? Does that really mean that *they* are foolish, or that *we* are? Don’t they have that right, to seek for, to find, happiness?…If they find it in a way that makes no sense whatever to us, is that a problem? Why so?

I’m not trying to look down on anyone and disrespect or criticize their decisions based on their sincere beliefs, I’m sorry if anything I said came across that way. A more accurate description of my point-of-view is that I feel sorry for some of these members that are making extreme sacrifices for the Church. Maybe they don’t want any pity, but the reason I can’t help feeling this way is mostly because I think many of them are making these choices based on limited information and/or under significant pressure from other members.

It would be easier for me to give the Church and other members the benefit of the doubt that they are doing all this because they really want to and honestly feel good about it if they had actually heard both sides of the story so they could make an informed decision but I doubt that is actually happening in most cases. If the Church would tone it down with some of their claims and expectations or try to make sure people really understand what they are getting into and why then I would gladly stop criticizing their approach. However, as long as they only present whitewashed history then I’m not going to apologize for complaining about their demands for all this sacrifice because as far as I’m concerned this just isn’t a very Christian or ethical way to treat people.

For example, what happens when the typical TBM that goes on a mission, gets married in the temple, faithfully pays tithing, doesn’t turn down callings, etc. for half their life stumbles on some anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet and loses faith in the Church? Many of them will inevitably feel like victims and will be bitter toward the Church because of all this time, money, and effort they’ve invested in it. That’s why I recommend saying no to the Church if you don’t feel good about something to anyone that will listen, not just for their own sake but hopefully to send the message that enough is enough and maybe help the Church gradually move toward some positive changes.

[Anonymous]

Glad I skipped the movie, this thread has been much more entertaining. fwiw, before my fall from grace I would have seen the mans sacrifice as an incredible act of faith. Post fall and after reading “The Mysteries of Godliness- a history of Mormon temple worship- I see it as a complete waste of time, and money. This is just my opinion.

[Author]

Posts