Exclusion?

[Calm]

All of the above plus there is just no way a non-believer has the reverence for these ordinances and covenants that a person who has prepared for and received a temple recommend. I would predict that someone unbelieving would be disappointed at the lack of pomp and ceremony and then would not show the roper reverence then or in the future.

I think someone who does not believe can externally act as reverent as someone who is a believer. For example when I attended a mass, I did not see any outward difference between my own behaviour and those around me save that I had to look for direction in what to do from my friend. In some ways I was even more respectful because I was overcautious about my behaviour than some of the other youth in attendance. However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the internal state of reverence due to understanding and connection with the ritual that a believer has that a nonbeliever lacks. I think someone who has a core belief that in the mass there is present the actual body and blood of the Son is going to have very different attitude toward the ritual than I did though I had great respect and admiration for the commitment of those around me and the concepts they were teaching as well as the fact they were reaching out to encounter God in a very fundamental way that was beyond my own understanding and belief, much as there will be a fundamentally different experience of the temple between those who believe that the Lord has been physically present at times in his temples, that modern temples are as sacred as the ones that housed the holy ark of covenant and those who see temples as no different from any other building that exists today.

Because I do not believe in transubstantiation, I would never take the mass as that would be in my mind an insult to all those who do believe as well as an insult to God because he is there present in the ritual for his children even if I don't believe he is there in the same way that they do. By me partaking of the ritual, I would be saying in my view "this ritual is meaningless since it doesn't matter if those who participate believe or not." I would be making a mockery of it.

The question for me is whether or not those in the temple are participating in any way in the rituals that is different than those who observe sacred rituals outside of the temple that are open to the public. I believe there is a participation by all present, though it is passive to a great extent especially if one does not go through the endowment prior to the sealing.

I personally believe that due to what Matthew mentioned above about the tokens and other aspects of the temple ritual (including sacred clothing) where one is given sacred and restricted knowledge of the meaning of the actions we go through in the endowment, some of which are referenced in the sealing, that one cannot truly be a witness of the sealing ritual without having an understanding of it that is gained through the teaching of the endowment. When we observe these special sacred elements if we are truly engaged in the ritual, we will be remembering and expanding our own understanding of them...an extension of the endowment and our own sealing if we have been involved in one. Thus we are participants in the ritual as well as observers....or should be. Unfortunately not all approach the experience with the proper attitude and openness to the Spirit.

It is even hard at times for those who have participated to understand and those who approach the sealing without the proper preparation of heart, mind and soul---which includes attention to and connection with other temple rituals---often suffer because of this lack. They may even develop an antipathy toward the temple from what I've seen.

Those who would witness (and therefore in my opinion participate in) the ritual without being able to have access to certain key concepts would, in my opinion, render those key concepts as meaningless even if they treated them with the utmost respect and reverence. Understanding and personal covenant are part of being a witness at this level of commitment to the Lord, imo. If one is not prepared to function as witnesses for the ritual, even if they are not the official witnesses, I don't believe it is appropriate for them to attend.

There was a reason why when temples were reintroduced by Joseph Smith that they became set apart from the world. It was not initially so as demonstrated by the Kirtland Temple. Unlike some here, I don't believe it was keeping polygamous marriages secret that was the reason for the temple rituals to be restricted, restricted so that even some who were devout believers were not able to attend.

For those who feel otherwise, I would suggest you go to the only source of relief and that is the Lord. Pray to him to reveal to our leaders the correct form of sealing that allows for a public witness by any who desire to do so.

But if I believed such, I would also be cautious enough to pray for my own understanding of the Lord's Will to be expanded and if I was wrong and not the leaders, for my heart to be softened and my mind to grow in knowledge of what significance of the setting apart of the temple and its rituals meant to not only those who participated, but the world in general.

[Calm]

One other thought...

In attending the Cardston temple we had the experience of moving from room to room up around the central tower of the temple as we 'moved' through the endowment from 'kingdom' to 'kingdom'. At the end was the celestial room. The physical movement through the rooms very much conveyed to me the movement toward the encounter with God at the celestial level.

It is after the celestial room that the sealing takes place so symbolically one could view a sealing room as the highest level in the celestial kingdom.

If so, then it seems to me to be reasonable to understand that just as not all are ready to fully experience God at the level of exaltation, so are not all ready to encounter the Lord not only symbolically but in reality during the sealing ritual which is the earthly correspondence to entry into exaltation in the eternities.

Edited June 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

One other thought...

In attending the Cardston temple we had the experience of moving from room to room up around the central tower of the temple as we 'moved' through the endowment from 'kingdom' to 'kingdom'. At the end was the celestial room. The physical movement through the rooms very much conveyed to me the movement toward the encounter with God at the celestial level.

It is after the celestial room that the sealing takes place so symbolically one could view a sealing room as the highest level in the celestial kingdom.

If so, then it seems to me to be reasonable to understand that just as not all are ready to fully experience God at the level of exaltation, so are not all ready to encounter the Lord not only symbolically but in reality during the sealing ritual which is the earthly correspondence to entry into exaltation in the eternities.

And yet here's the basic point of the argument made by the opposition:

God has nothing to do with your temple ceremonies, so you're just being mean spirited by not opening them up to everyone. And all these claims about "learning" something that others can't understand, or gaining some kind of mystical power from the ceremony is bunk. There's nothing in there that anyone else couldn't get the same out of or understand any less than some other Mormon. Hence you owe every apologies for all the harm you've inflicted on innocent family members who aren't Mormons who aren't allowed into the temple. You better conform to what we expect from you Mormons, or you're going to eventually become irrelevant - because, after all, you're just another man-made organization like the rest of them.

There reality of the situation is that there is great power and sacredness in the temple, and that God does direct the work and covenants made there according to His rules. The world, and those who persist in embracing the world over the gospel and its covenants are the ones who will eventually become irrelevant in the eternities. And if they can't respect the way things are done in the temples, and want to just complain about being offended, then they really do not have any business being in the temple anyway.

[jwhitlock]

Obviously we will disagree on this point. The exclusionary policy (not doctrine) is a remnant of the secret polygamous sealings that were introduced in Nauvoo.

I’ll say it. I don’t believe God directs the LDS Church.

It's your prerogative to believe as you want, and to rationalize that belief any way that you desire.

We know otherwise; God does direct the church and especially the work done in the temples. As such, we'll follow His direction and not what the world expects from us. Those who want to follow Him will come and make the covenants He has provided and find safety in the last days.

The rest of you are on your own. Good luck with that.

[ERayR]

One other thought...

In attending the Cardston temple we had the experience of moving from room to room up around the central tower of the temple as we 'moved' through the endowment from 'kingdom' to 'kingdom'. At the end was the celestial room. The physical movement through the rooms very much conveyed to me the movement toward the encounter with God at the celestial level.

It is after the celestial room that the sealing takes place so symbolically one could view a sealing room as the highest level in the celestial kingdom.

If so, then it seems to me to be reasonable to understand that just as not all are ready to fully experience God at the level of exaltation, so are not all ready to encounter the Lord not only symbolically but in reality during the sealing ritual which is the earthly correspondence to entry into exaltation in the eternities.

The sealing rooms are symbolic of the eternal and ongoing nature of the covenants just made throughout the rest of the temple.

It is not just the external reverence that should be maintained. However it is my feeling that the wholesale admittance of the non-believers into the sanctuary of God would be a desecration of that sanctuary. Even an area on a mountain in the wilderness of Sinai was designated as holy ground and Moses had to take off his shoes in respect to its holiness.

[jwhitlock]

The sealing rooms are symbolic of the eternal and ongoing nature of the covenants just made throughout the rest of the temple.

It is not just the external reverence that should be maintained. However it is my feeling that the wholesale admittance of the non-believers into the sanctuary of God would be a desecration of that sanctuary. Even an area on a mountain in the wilderness of Sinai was designated as holy ground and Moses had to take off his shoes in respect to its holiness.

Interesting point, and it brings to mind the fact that the temples of the Jews, as they were built, were very exclusive as to who could enter what areas. That, of course, was directed specifically by revelation as recorded in the Old Testament. It's not unreasonable to claim that God has limited access to the temple in a similar manner in our day.

[Bob Oliverio]

It is not just the external reverence that should be maintained.  However it is my feeling that the wholesale admittance of the non-believers into the sanctuary of God would be a desecration of that sanctuary.  Even an area on a mountain in the wilderness of Sinai  was designated as holy ground and Moses had to take off his shoes in respect to its holiness.

There are many cultures and customs where taking ones shoes off as a sign of respect exist, even today.  But I can't find that as a reason to exclude anyone in any of these practices.  And while this example may satisfy the emotional needs of some of us trying to defend an indefensible practice, it still has nothing to with our doctrine and the very reasonable questions asked on this thread as to it's necessity and doctrinal support.

JeremyOrb-Smith has asked some very reasonable questions that I echo and believe are very relative for evaluation of this practice and policy.  And yet I feel most here subscribe to that missionary teacher - Millet, who I referred to in another thread, who taught: "Don't answer the question that was asked, but rather answer the question that should have been asked"!

We have no doctrine that calls for the exclusion of others in any of our practices, ordinances or blessings. No one can sight such a doctrine that our Church has publicly stated as the reason for such exclusion.  I respect the significance of the Temple.  But I fail to find scriptural support anywhere for not sharing it's beauty with anyone - even after dedication!

When I joined the Church, I held on to my desire and ability to think independently.  I see many here as if they joined a union and adopted "group think".  I'm fortunate to be able to have these very same questions and conversations with some in our own ward without the arrogance and avoidance that happens with some here.

But I'll just join in with JeremyOrb and wait to see if reason and doctrine are offered up as explanation in this thread.  And I respect everyones emotions and rationalizations for the history of this practice.  But personally, with all the negative perception that exists toward the Church, there are many things we can do to extend goodwill within the Christian community with respect to our beliefs.  Being "inclusive" as opposed to "exclusive" to such a joyous moment would be a great start.  Reminds me of the actions of Jesus at the wedding of Cana.

[ERayR]

There are many cultures and customs where taking ones shoes off as a sign of respect exist, even today. But I can't find that as a reason to exclude anyone in any of these practices. And while this example may satisfy the emotional needs of some of us trying to defend an indefensible practice, it still has nothing to with our doctrine and the very reasonable questions asked on this thread as to it's necessity and doctrinal support.

JeremyOrb-Smith has asked some very reasonable questions that I echo and believe are very relative for evaluation of this practice and policy. And yet I feel most here subscribe to that missionary teacher - Millet, who I referred to in another thread, who taught: "Don't answer the question that was asked, but rather answer the question that should have been asked"!

We have no doctrine that calls for the exclusion of others in any of our practices, ordinances or blessings. No one can sight such a doctrine that our Church has publicly stated as the reason for such exclusion. I respect the significance of the Temple. But I fail to find scriptural support anywhere for not sharing it's beauty with anyone - even after dedication!

When I joined the Church, I held on to my desire and ability to think independently. I see many here as if they joined a union and adopted "group think". I'm fortunate to be able to have these very same questions and conversations with some in our own ward without the arrogance and avoidance that happens with some here.

But I'll just join in with JeremyOrb and wait to see if reason and doctrine are offered up as explanation in this thread. And I respect everyones emotions and rationalizations for the history of this practice. But personally, with all the negative perception that exists toward the Church, there are many things we can do to extend goodwill within the Christian community with respect to our beliefs. Being "inclusive" as opposed to "exclusive" to such a joyous moment would be a great start. Reminds me of the actions of Jesus at the wedding of Cana.

In your single minded push for your own agenda you seem to deliberately ignore the point of what I said. It is the sanctity and holiness of the temple that must be maintained.

At this point I have my doubts that reason or doctrine would sway your single mindedness.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ERayR

[Nominee]

You owe every non-member parent who has waited outside the temple an apology for calling them spectators.

My non-member parents would likely not accept the apology. Instead they would offer a rebuttal to the assumption of their offense. Mom and Dad are proud to have a daughter who chose a righteous path and who made serious covenants with God. They know that each person who enters into the temple of God must live worthy to do so. They witness each day and have respect for my worthiness in the eyes of our Heavenly Father because they are aware of the choices that must be made. They know the temptations I face in the world and what it takes to turn away from them because they themselves do not live according to the commandments of God. A non-member parent should be keenly aware of the differences between their lifestyle and their member child's. A non-member parent should recognize the strength, courage, endurance, faith, long-suffering, meekness, humility, obedience, and love that it takes to live worthy. A non-member should be grateful to have a child that embodies these characteristics and grateful for a God that recognizes and respects them as well. My non-member parents are proud of the fact that I have made better choices for myself and certainly do not blame God, His church, or me for their own unwillingness to live according to His commandments.

[KevinG]

[jwhitlock]

My non-member parents would likely not accept the apology. Instead they would offer a rebuttal to the assumption of their offense. Mom and Dad are proud to have a daughter who chose a righteous path and who made serious covenants with God. They know that each person who enters into the temple of God must live worthy to do so. They witness each day and have respect for my worthiness in the eyes of our Heavenly Father because they are aware of the choices that must be made. They know the temptations I face in the world and what it takes to turn away from them because they themselves do not live according to the commandments of God. A non-member parent should be keenly aware of the differences between their lifestyle and their member child's. A non-member parent should recognize the strength, courage, endurance, faith, long-suffering, meekness, humility, obedience, and love that it takes to live worthy. A non-member should be grateful to have a child that embodies these characteristics and grateful for a God that recognizes and respects them as well. My non-member parents are proud of the fact that I have made better choices for myself and certainly do not blame God, His church, or me for their own unwillingness to live according to His commandments.

Thanks for sharing that perspective.

[ERayR]

My non-member parents would likely not accept the apology. Instead they would offer a rebuttal to the assumption of their offense. Mom and Dad are proud to have a daughter who chose a righteous path and who made serious covenants with God. They know that each person who enters into the temple of God must live worthy to do so. They witness each day and have respect for my worthiness in the eyes of our Heavenly Father because they are aware of the choices that must be made. They know the temptations I face in the world and what it takes to turn away from them because they themselves do not live according to the commandments of God. A non-member parent should be keenly aware of the differences between their lifestyle and their member child's. A non-member parent should recognize the strength, courage, endurance, faith, long-suffering, meekness, humility, obedience, and love that it takes to live worthy. A non-member should be grateful to have a child that embodies these characteristics and grateful for a God that recognizes and respects them as well. My non-member parents are proud of the fact that I have made better choices for myself and certainly do not blame God, His church, or me for their own unwillingness to live according to His commandments.

Thanks for sharing.

[jwhitlock]

There are many cultures and customs where taking ones shoes off as a sign of respect exist, even today. But I can't find that as a reason to exclude anyone in any of these practices. And while this example may satisfy the emotional needs of some of us trying to defend an indefensible practice, it still has nothing to with our doctrine and the very reasonable questions asked on this thread as to it's necessity and doctrinal support

"Indefensible practice". And with that, you dismiss every reason that has been given on this thread for that practice - along with the doctrinal support given.

JeremyOrb-Smith has asked some very reasonable questions that I echo and believe are very relative for evaluation of this practice and policy. And yet I feel most here subscribe to that missionary teacher - Millet, who I referred to in another thread, who taught: "Don't answer the question that was asked, but rather answer the question that should have been asked"!

From his perspective, they're "reasonable". That perspective, by necessity, must exclude a significant amount of information that contradicts that perspective. Evidently, as you note above, the easiest way to deal with the real reasons for keeping the temple open only to those who are willing to make covenants is to ignore them.

We have no doctrine that calls for the exclusion of others in any of our practices, ordinances or blessings. No one can sight such a doctrine that our Church has publicly stated as the reason for such exclusion. I respect the significance of the Temple. But I fail to find scriptural support anywhere for not sharing it's beauty with anyone - even after dedication!

Again, reasons and scriptures have been quoted. You simply dismiss them. While you may "respect" the temple, you really don't understand what it's all about, do you.

When I joined the Church, I held on to my desire and ability to think independently. I see many here as if they joined a union and adopted "group think". I'm fortunate to be able to have these very same questions and conversations with some in our own ward without the arrogance and avoidance that happens with some here

Evidently, you're telling us here that anyone who disagrees with you has adopted "group think", and is just being arrogant and avoiding the issue. I find that ironic given your own avoidance of the reasons given in this thread..

But I'll just join in with JeremyOrb and wait to see if reason and doctrine are offered up as explanation in this thread. And I respect everyones emotions and rationalizations for the history of this practice. But personally, with all the negative perception that exists toward the Church, there are many things we can do to extend goodwill within the Christian community with respect to our beliefs. Being "inclusive" as opposed to "exclusive" to such a joyous moment would be a great start. Reminds me of the actions of Jesus at the wedding of Cana.

This is pretty much doublespeak. Explanations have been offered. You claim to "respect" us while labeling our beliefs as "emotion[al], rationalizations, group think, avoidance, and arrogance". Since others have negative perceptions of us, we must obviously be wrong, and must change our practices so as not to offend them.

This is just ridiculous.

[ERayR]

And yet here's the basic point of the argument made by the opposition:

God has nothing to do with your temple ceremonies, so you're just being mean spirited by not opening them up to everyone. And all these claims about "learning" something that others can't understand, or gaining some kind of mystical power from the ceremony is bunk. There's nothing in there that anyone else couldn't get the same out of or understand any less than some other Mormon. Hence you owe every apologies for all the harm you've inflicted on innocent family members who aren't Mormons who aren't allowed into the temple. You better conform to what we expect from you Mormons, or you're going to eventually become irrelevant - because, after all, you're just another man-made organization like the rest of them.

There reality of the situation is that there is great power and sacredness in the temple, and that God does direct the work and covenants made there according to His rules. The world, and those who persist in embracing the world over the gospel and its covenants are the ones who will eventually become irrelevant in the eternities. And if they can't respect the way things are done in the temples, and want to just complain about being offended, then they really do not have any business being in the temple anyway.

It seems I am out of rep points but would like to give you3 or 4 dozen for this.

[ERayR]

Interesting point, and it brings to mind the fact that the temples of the Jews, as they were built, were very exclusive as to who could enter what areas. That, of course, was directed specifically by revelation as recorded in the Old Testament. It's not unreasonable to claim that God has limited access to the temple in a similar manner in our day.

To me the temple is an interface between heaven and earth. A place where mortals can be immersed in the heavens to the extent they are prepared. That makes it a place where one must be very careful to keep the sanctity of the temple intact.

[jwhitlock]

It seems I am out of rep points but would like to give you3 or 4 dozen for this.

They seem to run out quickly, don't they.

There was another thread about another board where enemies of the church post that was shut down; however, one of the points in there stuck out to me. The OP was pointing out that when enemies of the church post things in response to the church, their attitude is often one of Mormons being stupid for believing such things, or Mormons don't think very deeply, or Mormons are lemmings, etc., etc., etc. Since Mormons don't see things the way they do, it is "clear" that Mormons must be those kind of people. There seems to be no ability to for acknowledging differences of opinion without denigrating those holding different opinions.

There seems to be nothing in the church that we do that is right, or from God, or well thought out, or truthful, or appropriate in the eyes of the world. I think that we in the church don't fully understand the depth of the antipathy that our enemies feel for us. They hate us. They're willing to describe us in the worst terms possible in order to justify that hatred.

I was rather taken aback, initially, to find that anyone would seriously demand that we open up the temples to outsiders. I am troubled that they consider it just stupid that we don't see it their way and let anyone in who wants to come in. I am frustrated that they so readily dismiss any reason given and instead continue to harp that we really don't have any reason for being "exclusive", that we're just being mean and arrogant.

During this thread, I kept thinking about the book of Acts and the accounts of Simon the Sorcerer, a person who wanted to make the early church over in his own image. That's happening again in our day. Either the leaders of the church receive guidance from God, or they don't. If they do, then people have no business trying to tell them how to do things. If they don't think the leaders are inspired, then don't denigrate the rest of us for still thinking they are inspired.

[jwhitlock]

To me the temple is an interface between heaven and earth. A place where mortals can be immersed in the heavens to the extent they are prepared. That makes it a place where one must be very careful to keep the sanctity of the temple intact.

There was an incident in the Washington DC temple a number of years ago where a man forced his way in with a gun and barricaded himself on one of the upstairs floors. Once word got out, every police department in the area had officers at the temple. They also got in since there was an incident in progress; here was a chance to get inside that building that only Mormons can enter. They eventually got the situation resolved and everybody left, but some of them were smoking in the stairwells, a lot of them were poking around in other areas where there wasn't a problem, etc.

The interesting thing about it was that over the next several weeks, the temple in effect "rededicated" itself as the effects of the intrusions were cleared out. There were many people who commented on that peculiar effect and who came away with increased understanding about the sanctity of the temple and how the world shouldn't intrude there. No matter how well intentioned some non-Mormons might be, if they haven't made the covenants, they haven't come out of the world yet. Temples as refuges from the world are one of the most powerful indicators of the truth of the restored gospel.

Perhaps it's an innate recognition of that power that causes our enemies to be so eager to have them opened up to the world.

[ERayR]

Something to think about: In any wedding every mortal present except the bride and groom are spectators. In a temple ceremony there is one more added participant beside the bride and groom and that is God. I think it is up to the participants to decide who is allowed as a spectator. Since God is a participant and all others, including the other two participants are guests in his house, it is up to him to decide who enters and who does not. I was always taught it was poor form to enter someones home without an invitation.

Edited June 2, 2012 by ERayR

[Nominee]

I attend in the Temple regularly and it is because of this that I understand completely, through and through, why things are the way that God has set them. To be entirely honest I find it to be so sacred that I cannot find words to explain for others. The sacred and exclusive nature of the temples and what they bring to those worthy is something I intend to thank Heavenly Father for in person. I'm not sure how I would endure this earth life if it were not for God's perfect and infinite wisdom. My recommendation to all who lack understanding is to pray, fast, obtain a temple recommend worthily, and use it regularly.

Regards, Naomi

[Matthew J. Tandy]

There are many cultures and customs where taking ones shoes off as a sign of respect exist, even today. But I can't find that as a reason to exclude anyone in any of these practices. And while this example may satisfy the emotional needs of some of us trying to defend an indefensible practice, it still has nothing to with our doctrine and the very reasonable questions asked on this thread as to it's necessity and doctrinal support.

JeremyOrb-Smith has asked some very reasonable questions that I echo and believe are very relative for evaluation of this practice and policy. And yet I feel most here subscribe to that missionary teacher - Millet, who I referred to in another thread, who taught: "Don't answer the question that was asked, but rather answer the question that should have been asked"!

We have no doctrine that calls for the exclusion of others in any of our practices, ordinances or blessings. No one can sight such a doctrine that our Church has publicly stated as the reason for such exclusion. I respect the significance of the Temple. But I fail to find scriptural support anywhere for not sharing it's beauty with anyone - even after dedication!

When I joined the Church, I held on to my desire and ability to think independently. I see many here as if they joined a union and adopted "group think". I'm fortunate to be able to have these very same questions and conversations with some in our own ward without the arrogance and avoidance that happens with some here.

But I'll just join in with JeremyOrb and wait to see if reason and doctrine are offered up as explanation in this thread. And I respect everyones emotions and rationalizations for the history of this practice. But personally, with all the negative perception that exists toward the Church, there are many things we can do to extend goodwill within the Christian community with respect to our beliefs. Being "inclusive" as opposed to "exclusive" to such a joyous moment would be a great start. Reminds me of the actions of Jesus at the wedding of Cana.

Bob... Before continuing further, please explain to me how you get around the fact that non-temple worthy member and non-member spectators would have a key token and its name revealed as an integral part of the ceremony? One that we made our most sacred covenants to never reveal. Ever.

It is apparent that there is simply no way to allow participation from outsiders in a LDS Temple Sealing without cutting out the very heart and symbolism of the ceremony. The only way to participate is if you have already made the covenants associated with the endowment yourself. And that comes from being LDS and living worthy of the highest blessings and obligations.

I will accept however that I believe there could be more adaptation for outside ceremonies and time frames involved. My view is that as long as the Sealing is performed first, and there is no ceremony claiming they are being married "again" by the authority of God without his actual Priesthood authority, then I am ok with it. Ring ceremonies are fine. Promise ceremonies. Just no church-based ceremonies.

[volgadon]

There are many cultures and customs where taking ones shoes off as a sign of respect exist, even today. But I can't find that as a reason to exclude anyone in any of these practices. And while this example may satisfy the emotional needs of some of us trying to defend an indefensible practice, it still has nothing to with our doctrine and the very reasonable questions asked on this thread as to it's necessity and doctrinal support.

Taking off my shoes when entering a home was something I learned as a kid from my Russian friends. I served a mission in Russia and my wife is Ukrainian, so removing shoes is second nature now. In the temple, however, there is more to removing shoes than mere respect. It signifies the move to a higher level of purity and sanctity, which is sharply delineated from the outside world. The point is not so much to bring God to the world, but to bring the world to God, through adherence to certain stipuations and guidelines.

[ERayR]

Taking off my shoes when entering a home was something I learned as a kid from my Russian friends. I served a mission in Russia and my wife is Ukrainian, so removing shoes is second nature now. In the temple, however, there is more to removing shoes than mere respect. It signifies the move to a higher level of purity and sanctity, which is sharply delineated from the outside world. The point is not so much to bring God to the world, but to bring the world to God, through adherence to certain stipuations and guidelines.

Yes thank you

[Bob Oliverio]

The point is not so much to bring God to the world, but to bring the world to God, through adherence to certain stipuations and guidelines

Another classic emotional rationalization that can be proffered on an obscure message board, which would

NEVER be supported publicly by our Church in defense of such an offensive exclusionary policy.  And still it amazes me how far some members will go to justify a practice that will continue to isolate us from the Christian community.

Will we ever see the light???

[ERayR]

Another classic emotional rationalization that can be proffered on an obscure message board, which would

NEVER be supported publicly by our Church in defense of such an offensive exclusionary policy. And still it amazes me how far some members will go to justify a practice that will continue to isolate us from the Christian community.

Will we ever see the light???

And it amazes me how far some members will go to trivialize and desecrate the temple and its ordinances.

Edited June 3, 2012 by ERayR

[jwhitlock]

Another classic emotional rationalization that can be proffered on an obscure message board, which would

NEVER be supported publicly by our Church in defense of such an offensive exclusionary policy. And still it amazes me how far some members will go to justify a practice that will continue to isolate us from the Christian community.

Will we ever see the light???

We? Us? Faithful members of the church who embrace the temple certainly see the light; hence, you must be using the term in the royal sense (in which case your last sentence makes sense), or there's a multiple personality issue that you really shouldn't be discussing on this board.

In any case, you just seem to be looking for a stage - and not to come to any sort of understanding - at this point. Good luck trying to mold things in your own image.