Would you lie during a temple recommend interview in

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

This sounds exactly like an answer Pres. Packer would give. Vague. Impossible to argue with as it is opinion unsupported by scripture. The answer drips with that saccharine condescending paternalism that the person making the statement is more qualified to determine where matters are best understood then the individual desiring to understand or their parents. And of course the statement isn't open to discussion and refinement--it might as well be written in stone on Sinai and the mind is completely closed on the matter.

Yeah, I guess I do think the prophet is more qualified to make that determination than anyone else. That's the beauty of priesthood keys.

As for written in stone ... everything is written in stone until changed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's interesting how entrenched we get when defending the precise protocol of temple ceremonies. When in fact there is no written "revelation" of any of the ceremony and much of it is borrowed directly from the masonic rites. The ceremony varied dramatically after the initial introduction as JS and other early leaders experimented until it "seemed right". Even so, it has been modified substantially since then.

I am not saying we shouldn't treat it as sacred. But it is not blasphemy to consider what could be done differently. (given the proper delivery, of course).

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yeah, I guess I do think the prophet is more qualified to make that determination than anyone else. That's the beauty of priesthood keys.

As for written in stone ... everything is written in stone until changed.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're saying is/isn't written in stone, but is there an official document or record somewhere that gives the rules and regulations of the temple ceremonies/ordinances? I'm curious to know where the requirement comes from that excludes YM/YW members of the church from witnessing a temple wedding. Given the number of changes in the temple ceremonies that have occurred over the years, I would think that requirement could easily be changed.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's interesting how entrenched we get when defending the precise protocol of temple ceremonies. When in fact there is no written "revelation" of any of the ceremony and much of it is borrowed directly from the masonic rites. The ceremony varied dramatically after the initial introduction as JS and other early leaders experimented until it "seemed right". Even so, it has been modified substantially since then.

I am not saying we shouldn't treat it as sacred. But it is not blasphemy to consider what could be done differently. (given the proper delivery, of course).

You beat me to it Lebowski, exactly what I'm saying.

[RockyBalboa]

And Adam continues to show his true colors.

Not that they weren't obvious the first time around.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

And again, the fundamental difference between us pops up its head.

You think that a blanket rule from the Church bureaucracy, unsupported by scripture and unarticulated by reason, should be given deference over the thoughtful opinions and spiritual promptings of actual faithful Latter-day Saints in actual family situations.

I would say teach the correct principle that those unprepared to witness the ceremony should not be invited in to see the ceremony and leave it to the families to determine who was invited.

You would say only those with a current temple recommend with no exceptions no matter what.

Have you ever read BYU Professor Bonner Ritche on organizational abuse in the Church? Do you care that such rigid policies will inevitably hurt some members?

I'm not sure where you get your "correct principle" from, but this is what the Brethren have decided, and it's their perogative to do so. I've "articulated" for you the reason, but that doesn't mean I made the decision though I support and agree with it.

Originally Posted by scottie

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I'm not sure what you're saying is/isn't written in stone, but is there an official document or record somewhere that gives the rules and regulations of the temple ceremonies/ordinances? I'm curious to know where the requirement comes from that excludes YM/YW members of the church from witnessing a temple wedding. Given the number of changes in the temple ceremonies that have occurred over the years, I would think that requirement could easily be changed.

I believe it's in the General Handbook, but I'd have to double check. And yes, it could be changed (don't know about "easily"), by the right person with the right authority.

[RC Vikings]

Would their be a drop in tithing if the rules were changed to allow non-recommend holders to attend?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It's interesting how entrenched we get when defending the precise protocol of temple ceremonies. When in fact there is no written "revelation" of any of the ceremony and much of it is borrowed directly from the masonic rites. The ceremony varied dramatically after the initial introduction as JS and other early leaders experimented until it "seemed right". Even so, it has been modified substantially since then.

I am not saying we shouldn't treat it as sacred. But it is not blasphemy to consider what could be done differently. (given the proper delivery, of course).

I think it's human nature to want to find reasoning to back up why things are the way they are. When it comes to church matters we do that all the time. What we forget is that sometimes the rule is just the rule and there is no reasoning, or no one remembers what the reasoning was. Occasionally the bretheren re-examine something and decide to change it. Those who get too stuck on the reason why it is that way, can be thrown for a loop. See the policy on the priesthood as an example. People left the church over that because their reasoning turned out to be wrong and they couldn't accept that. I don't think anyone would leave the church if they suddenly changed the policy to allow worthy youth to attend a sealing of a sibling or parent. There may be a very good reason why it's not allowed now, but at the same time, just because it's the way things are done today doesn't mean there is a rock solid reason behind it or that it couldn't change some day.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think it's human nature to want to find reasoning to back up why things are the way they are. When it comes to church matters we do that all the time. What we forget is that sometimes the rule is just the rule and there is no reasoning, or no one remembers what the reasoning was. Occasionally the bretheren re-examine something and decide to change it. Those who get too stuck on the reason why it is that way, can be thrown for a loop. See the policy on the priesthood as an example. People left the church over that because their reasoning turned out to be wrong and they couldn't accept that. I don't think anyone would leave the church if they suddenly changed the policy to allow worthy youth to attend a sealing of a sibling or parent. There may be a very good reason why it's not allowed now, but at the same time, just because it's the way things are done today doesn't mean there is a rock solid reason behind it or that it couldn't change some day.

Well said.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think it's human nature to want to find reasoning to back up why things are the way they are. When it comes to church matters we do that all the time.

What percentage of active members would you guess that applies to? I would say it definitely does not apply to guys like Tex, Indy, Lingo, and Rocky.