- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I may soon lose my temple recommend b/c I don’t believe the Church leaders are “prophets, seers, and revelators.” The thought crossed my mind that I will be unable to buy garments at the temple if this happens? What typically happens with situations like this? Will I be considered unworthy to wear garments?
I’m actually curious too, this being my only hangup with the interview, will I be considered unworthy to go to the temple? (When I did bring this up in an interview, it sounded like they would not issue me a temple recommend.) Anyone have experience or knowledge about this sort of thing?
Regardless of your TR status, if you are endowed, you can purchase the garment. What Hawk said. The standard for performing ordinances in the temple is not the same as for purchasing the garment. There is NOTHING wrong with continuing to wear the garment if you don’t hold a current recommend. If you don’t hold a current temple recommend, you can’t perform ordinances there – but you still can be baptized for the dead if your local leadership treats the interview like they would for the teenagers (not the same standard as for adults, although generally similar – more leeway in general and no requirement to hold a full recommend). That’s a bit of a crapshoot, depending on your local leaders, but it’s worth asking if you don’t receive a full temple recommend but still want to participate in baptisms for the dead.
Welcome Allquieton! I agree with what Hawk and Ray have said. I also wanted to touch on your comment that:
Quote:I don’t believe the Church leaders are “prophets, seers, and revelators”
This hits home to me, I remember having similar thoughts in the past. It’s a difficult time, when you see your views changing and everything that you’ve know previously is trying to suggest you are becoming incompatible with the church. Don’t listen to the divisionary thoughts, nobody is perfect. God (and the ideal of any people claiming to follow God) is a uniting force, not divisionary. Today I see the problem as my prior unrealistic definition of “prophets, seers, and revelators.” Nevermind the impressions that other mortals may give – go to the source. It may be helpful to listen to Ray’s parsing, and the personal definitions of others, but ultimately that source deep within YOU is the compass that will lead you “home”; and if you want that home to be compatible with the LDS church I believe it can be.
Best wishes to you!
Allquieton it is clear that you don’t have to worry about wearing your garments and I would add that I have gone through many stretches of life, years at a time, without a temple recommend and still able to purchase garments and have always worn them, Hawk has the correct doctrine on this. I guess the key would be to really look at what you mean by:
Quote:I don’t believe the Church leaders are “prophets, seers, and revelators.”
I don’t know about you but I find that I am a particularly stubborn doubting Thomas. I have a very difficult time myself considering that the Church leaders (all GAs) as a “bulk commodity” are “prophet, seers and revelators” or even narrowing that down to the Quorum of 12 and First Presidency. However to balance this I was fortunate to go to a talk that Nathan Eldon Tanner gave in Seattle around 1968 while I was in university. When I was in his physical presence, and prepared faithfully for the experience, I had no doubt that he was a prophet of God, I have a very strong testimony of both his priesthood and his authority that has helped to sustain me to this day. Similarly when President Hinckley did one of his major tours in stopped in Prince George, B.C., (around 2002 ish or so I think) and once again I received an extremely strong and overpowering testimony that he was indeed the prophet of the Lord. Those two are the ONLY two men who I can truthfully say that “I know” they were prophets, seers and revelators. So when I get to a temple interview that is pretty well what I say, “I have this testimony of these two men’ authority and I am willing to take on faith that most of the others probably have the same authority” … but I DON’T KNOW and I suppose I never will unless I get in a situation where I can be close enough to them physically to have the opportunity for the Holy Ghost to witness for me.
So, have you at any point in your life had a similar sense about any of the leader of the Church, it doesn’t even have to be at the GA level, a Bishop, EQ president, Stake Patriarch, whatever? If you have then you really need to pray and think and ponder about how you can answer the question with honesty but possibly with enough humble faith that you should still be able to have your TR.
Adding in one more verification from personal experience that you can buy garments (and of course wear them) without a current recommend. I have done so many times. I think the last time was here in Atlanta about 5 years ago and the lady at the distribution center asked to see my recommend (which is the only time I recall being asked). I smiled nicely and told her that I did not have a current recommend. That was the end of that conversation, and she did not treat me strange in any way. I have a feeling this is not as uncommon as you might think. On the other subject of “prophets, seers and revelators,” there are a lot of alternative ways of seeing this besides the one you might expect. You have to be comfortable with your answer though, so it is up to you. That is most important IMO.
For me though, that is the title these people have in our Church. I don’t think anyone else in the world right now should have that title for the LDS Church, which is really the original purpose of that question in my opinion. It was targeted at verifying that people are not a part of one of the other Mormon splinter groups. I also don’t have a problem accepting the leaders of the Church as “prophets, seers and revelators…” I just have a much looser and less absolute definition of what that means now. They can be all that, and at the same time not always have a correct message for me specifically from God. I would certainly listen to them though and consider the messages they feel prompted to share. I usually find something interesting, enlightening and useful.
Oh yeah, and lastly to address the subject wording of this thread. There are indeed two standards (and more) of “worthiness.” The two you are probably thinking of is a standard to be a member of the Church, and then the standard to actually go into the temple to perform ordinances. They are different. I’m not really sure that is a problem per se. It just is what it is. FWIW, I don’t think having doubts or concerns makes you morally impure. It makes you a thoughtful human being concerned about internal honesty.
Well said, valoel. On to this notion of “prophets, seers, and revelators,” what does this mean to you? As members of the church, we have all been given the gift of the holy ghost which includes the gift of prophecy and being entitled to personal revelation, making us all revelators. Revelation just means uncovering something that is hidden. Sounds a lot like when Jesus said, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” IOW, revelation = insight. Prophecy = warning voice. Clearly the Q12 + FP do give a warning voice in GC to avoid temptations and so forth. Seers = being able to see what others do not (er, insight again). I think it gets tricky when we have too high an expectation of what those things mean. I think right thinking and good life choices and experience lead to spiritual confidence and wisdom and access to inspiration. Maybe it’s that simple. The phrasing “prophets, seers, and revelators” reminds me of Groundhog Day when the Mayor of Punxatawney says, introducing Phil the groundhog: “seer of seers, prognosticator of prognosticators!”
Beautiful insight, hawk!! Or, would that be prophetess hawk! 😆 hawkgrrrl wrote:I think it gets tricky when we have too high an expectation of what those things mean.
I think it’s even trickier when one recognizes where those expectations come from and how they got there.
I thought I replied to this post, but it’s not showing up…Does it sometimes take a while for a post to get approved? I’m not seeing any posts requiring approval. Hawkgrrrl, GroundHog Day has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. When I was in college, we had a priesthood lesson on it, and it is a lesson I think I will remember forever!
Thanks everyone for your answers. Bill,
I have had those kinds of feelings about Church leaders. I probably even believe that they should be leading the Church and have authority. I get hung up on the definition of a prophet. I think what the scriptures (and God) mean by “prophet” is different from what the Church means. I go with the scriptural definition and find myself having to say, “no” to that one question.
I tried to explain myself in one interview and ask what is meant by “prophet” in that question. The interviewer seemed sympathetic, but ended up saying I needed to answer the question with a simple yes or no, by my understanding of it. Not sure if it was more this leader’s take on it, or if this is typical of Church leaders. But it seemed like he didn’t want to decide what the question meant or if I was worthy. It was all up to me, which I find frustrating. Though I suppose that could seem liberating to some.
I could go even further with the definition of a seer. The BoM says a seer uses the Interpreters. I don’t think anyone even thought of this when writing the question. I also don’t think prophets are always Church leaders–or vice versa. There are cases of this in the BoM I think. There’s more, but needless to say, I tend to take things literally.
If the only question was, Do you feel worthy to go to the temple, I could say Yes. But I don’t feel good saying yes, the way the question is worded…
Quote:I also don’t think prophets are always Church leaders.
Fwiw, neither does the Church, based on the definition of prophet in the Bible dictionary. Again, going back to what I view as pure Mormonism, all people can become prophets – and that really is empowering to me.
The Church says anyone can be a prophet, but not the prophet. Obviously we don’t sustain everyone as prophets, seers, and revelators. I think they ought to clarify. Or have they already? Scriptures often use the phrase
holy prophetsto describe the kind of prophet I’m talking about. And actually I don’t think the BoM ever uses the word prophet in any other sense. Btw–I know that Joseph Smith said something to that effect, but it seems to me that the Church is only recently emphasizing the anyone-can-be-a-prophet doctrine. Any thoughts?
I have been wondering what I will say at my next interview. I have the same concerns about committing to the leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators. I have decide that when ask those questions I will first ask “please define what a prophet , seer, and revelator is” Once I get their definition I can respond as to whether I believe it or not. Besides it will be interesting to see what their answer is. Maybe I will find they are not so different than mine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.