Strict Temple Requirements – good or bad idea?

[Anonymous]

Limhah wrote:

At every interview you are only asked if you consider yourself worthy. No one makes that final judgment but yourself. The only reason most people don’t have a TR is because they don’t want one. No one is stopping them from fulfilling the requirements. No one is holding them down and forcing coffee down their throats through a funnel.

If that were the case many more people would hold temple recommends. Unfortunately they do not just ask if you are worthy. They ask a number of probing question to determine if they think you are worthy. It is more an interview to determine worthiness by a set of pre imposed standards than simply ask you to use your own judgement. Answering in the negative to anyone of which can lead to you being denied a recommend.

The word of wisdom yes is simply a choice of behavior. I can easily live that code of conduct if I want a recommend. But when they ask things like do you believe Thomas Monson is the only person on the earth who can receive revelation for the entire planet, that is a lot harder to swallow. Then I am being asked to suspend my personal belief system and enter group think mode. Or when I am asked if I have a testimony of the truthfulness of the church. What do I say when so much evidence leads me to understand this may not be the case. If I can not answer affirmative I will not get a recommend and it will cause pain and anguish to family members.

So no just is not as simple as just not drinking coffee to remain a member in good standing.

[Anonymous]

I think there should be more emphasis on whether the person is involved in theft, violence etc

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Yep, interpretation is one thing – lying is another. I wont lie to get into the temple. The day I decide to just flat out lie in a “worthiness” interview is the time to just pack my bags and leave. I mean really, what would be the point?

+1

This is why I choose not to hold a TR. I’m not angry or embarrassed about it. It just is what it is, and there are two fine points in the interview process where I do not match the profile of what they are looking for. I am totally OK with God, just not what the earthly Church expects for an admission ticket to the building they constructed. *Shrug* It really isn’t that big a deal. If I want to change the situation, I will do so.

I am totally cool with it if other people approach the interview more loosely.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Yep, interpretation is one thing – lying is another. I wont lie to get into the temple.

I agree with this. My own personal integrity is valuable to me more than the approval of another person or the status of having a TR in the community. However, I do comply with the standards set out as Cadence says:

Quote:

The word of wisdom yes is simply a choice of behavior. I can easily live that code of conduct if I want a recommend.[/quote

As to the belief questions, that is IMO more subject to interpretation.

Quote:

But when they ask things like do you believe Thomas Monson is the only person on the earth who can receive revelation for the entire planet, that is a lot harder to swallow. Then I am being asked to suspend my personal belief system and enter group think mode. Or when I am asked if I have a testimony of the truthfulness of the church. What do I say when so much evidence leads me to understand this may not be the case. If I can not answer affirmative I will not get a recommend and it will cause pain and anguish to family members.

You’ve added some words and interpretation to that. And while there are some rabid TBMs who might definte TSM’s role as extensively as you did there, most have a less-thought out approach. I generally think of it more as whether I sustain him in his calling, and whether I believe he is the head of the church on earth. Which I have no problem agreeing with. If he made some major pronouncement for the whole earth (PoF predates him, for example), I might have to question that a little more. Even Prop 8 was still one foot in, one foot out. You could vote your conscience without making a public stand about it. Prophets in our day are not very intrusive in reality.

[Anonymous]

Is it okay if you cross your fingers behind your back when you answer a question or make a covenant? Traditionally that has been recognized as the universal sign that negates whatever it is you are agreeing to. At least, if everything I ever learned on the playground still counts.

[Anonymous]

Limhah wrote:

Is it okay if you cross your fingers behind your back when you answer a question or make a covenant? Traditionally that has been recognized as the universal sign that negates whatever it is you are agreeing to. At least, if everything I ever learned on the playground still counts.

No. You can’t do that because Joseph Smith didn’t “restore” that magical hand gesture from his source works written by Pseudo-Aggripa and Francis Barrett 😈 So it must not work, not really

(I am playing along, just in case anyone is not sure)

[Anonymous]

I’m grateful we live in a place where temple requirements seem strict to us. And we have a choice to interpret their meaning for us personally, without worrying about going to jail.

Quote:

Iran launches crackdown on Western hairstyles, Culture Ministry bans mullet, ponytails, long hair

The mullet is definitely not in fashion. And if you live in Iran, it’s also illegal.

Along with ponytails, elaborate spikes, and long hair, Iran has issued a list of approved Muslim hairstyles in effort to ban the country of “decadent Western cuts.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_iran_launches_crackdown_on_western_hairstyles_culture_ministry_bans_mullet_ponyt.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/07/06/2010-07-06_iran_launches_crackdown_on_western_hairstyles_culture_ministry_bans_mullet_ponyt.html

…on the other hand…I wouldn’t mind the “mullet” being banned from LDS temples as well…No “Celestial look from the front, telestial party-style in the back” should be allowed 😯

[Anonymous]

Well … at least SOMEONE is finally doing something about mullets! 😆

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Well … at least SOMEONE is finally doing something about mullets! 😆

Hey, don’t trash talk the mullet!

I wore one through the 80’s, and grew her back for a few years after my mission. What was I thinking? 😯 Good thing I’m not Iranian.

What would be the response in the temple room, if some guy walked in with a blue mo-hawk – holding hands with a bald women with multiple face piercings?

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

What would be the response in the temple room, if some guy walked in with a blue mo-hawk – holding hands with a bald women with multiple face piercings?

I would renew my TR in a heartbeat if that was a real possibility! (Edit: That I would see that, not that it isn’t possible) Dead serious, no joke.

I like to have fun and tell people I have a mullet 😆 It is short (0mm, bald) on top and party-long in the back (1mm). :ugeek:

[Anonymous]

Quote:

cwald wrote:

What would be the response in the temple room, if some guy walked in with a blue mo-hawk – holding hands with a bald women with multiple face piercings?

I’m happy to have seen recently the husband in the witness couple who had a full beard and braided pony tail just over halfway down his back. He looked sharp – and there were plenty of other couples who could have been asked.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

cwald wrote:

What would be the response in the temple room, if some guy walked in with a blue mo-hawk – holding hands with a bald women with multiple face piercings?

I’m happy to have seen recently the husband in the witness couple who had a full beard and braided pony tail just over halfway down his back. He looked sharp – and there were plenty of other couples who could have been asked.

Pony tail is a far cry from blue Mohawk. The blue Mohawk and face piercings would not make it past the lobby counter. If it could happen, I’d renew my temple recommend too, Brian…but it would never happen.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The blue Mohawk and face piercings would not make it past the lobby counter.

They would if the person had a current temple recommend. The role of the person at the lobby counter is to check for a valid recommend – nothing more. There is NO veto power vested in that position – nor in the Temple President, for that matter.

If someone held a valid recommend and THEN decided to wear a blue mohawk and get face piercings, a Bishop would be required to invalidate that recommend in order to keep the person from attending the temple (since the Stake President would be far less likely to be aware of it than the Bishop) – and I can see quite a few Bishops refusing to take away a recommend if the person still could answer the recommend questions properly. I know I would not do so, and I would advise a Bishop to not do so.

[Anonymous]

I like the concept of the temple, but I don’t think it was or is today what it was supposed to be. I don’t believe the Temple is necessary. The bonds of Heaven and Earth are eternal regardless of the Temple.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The bonds of Heaven and Earth are eternal regardless of the Temple.

I believe that as well, FenixDown – but I’m not sure that such a belief can last in the hearts and minds of humanity without being taught explicitly AND symbolically in a place like a temple. It’s quite easy for you to say that, since you’ve been taught that the bonds of Heaven and Earth are eternal; it’s not as easy for those who have not been taught it – and it actually is blasphemy to MANY Christians to claim that the bonds of Earth are eternal.

[Author]

Posts