Prayer Request from Houston Temple Presidency

[Pete Ahlstrom]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yet they do not hold such a notion. Why?

Maybe I can take a stab at this? The answer is in how the religious are conditioned to view the world. The coincidence of the flood waters not touching the Houston temple in 2016 was heralded as a miracle. However, that didn't happen in the current, terrible flooding from Harvey. It looks like yet another random occurrence where sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. Some cancer victims pass away even though many prayers and priesthood blessings were offered while some survive and it is viewed as a miracle.

Religion teaches its adherents to view the positive outcomes as being from God and to almost instantaneously justify in some way why the miracle didn't happen when it doesn't. God is mysterious the religious say. No one can know his ways. So and so was needed on the other side for some rationalized reason. So, given this conditioning, it isn't remarkable that the flooding wouldn't cause the religious to bat an eye even though the so-called miracle of 2016 didn't happen now.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe I can take a stab at this? The answer is in how the religious are conditioned to view the world. The coincidence of the flood waters not touching the Houston temple in 2016 was heralded as a miracle. However, that didn't happen in the current, terrible flooding from Harvey. It looks like yet another random occurrence where sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. Some cancer victims pass away even though many prayers and priesthood blessings were offered while some survive and it is viewed as a miracle.

Religion teaches its adherents to view the positive outcomes as being from God and to almost instantaneously justify in some way why the miracle didn't happen when it doesn't. God is mysterious the religious say. No one can know his ways. So and so was needed on the other side for some rationalized reason. So, given this conditioning, it isn't remarkable that the flooding wouldn't cause the religious to bat an eye even though the so-called miracle of 2016 didn't happen now.

And that is a good summary of how it looks to the cynical outsider. I disagree with the conclusion though.

[bluebell]

On 9/2/2017 at 3:30 AM, Marginal Gains said:

That’s a pretty poor and unnecessarily directly personal response, in my opinion.

It wasn't meant to be insulting; it was an honest observation based on your reply.  I outlined why the reply didn't make sense to me and assumed that you must not have children because you couldn't see how your reply made no sense when looked at from the perspective of a parent.

[bluebell]

On 9/2/2017 at 2:01 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Isn’t good parenting about being consistent? So a child knows that in a certain situation how the parent will behave?

It is about consistency within constantly changing parameters.  My kids are all different ages, so family rules are not consistently applied to each of them.  Instead, the rules are tailored to fit their specific needs, strengths, weaknesses and situations that they deal with.

Quote

For instance, if the house rule is that if you eat your vegetables and say please and thank you you get dessert, but then the outcome to eating your vegetables and saying please and than you only results in dessert on sporadic occasions, is that a good way of reinforcing good behaviours in a child?

That wouldn't be a good way to reinforce good behavior in a child.  But it also wouldn't be a good rule to create in the first place.  It wouldn't teach good behavior in the long run.  And teaching good behavior in the long run is God's goal, not getting us to jump through hoops so that He will dispense blessings like a vending machine.

[bluebell]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:22 PM, Navidad said:

Interesting point. If I were to walk into the temple in Colonia Juarez tomorrow, what about me would "violate" it. Such a harsh word. 

Temples are dedicated buildings and considered the House of the Lord.  Knowingly allowing unworthy people into the temple would violate it's sanctity.  And by unworthy I mean those who are not living certain standards that we believe Christ has set.

Do you have no worthiness beliefs in your religion?  Anything and everything is acceptable to God in your view?

[Navidad]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Temples are dedicated buildings and considered the House of the Lord.  Knowingly allowing unworthy people into the temple would violate it's sanctity.  And by unworthy I mean those who are not living certain standards that we believe Christ has set.

Do you have no worthiness beliefs in your religion?  Anything and everything is acceptable to God in your view?

I know and understand temple rules. I am intrigued by your term "those who are not living certain standards that we believe Christ has set" Can you please tell me which Christ-set standards of living that you believe I am not living, when you don't even know me? Those words imply to me Christian standards that enable us to live as the physical visible presence of God on earth; acknowledging our body is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit - a temple; living a clean "as much as is possible sin-free life;" by our actions and our words giving thanks to Christ and Heavenly Father, and in my terminology "living separate and apart from the world and worldliness; tithing, keeping covenants, having faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit and living like it;  chastity, faithful to family, etc."

It seems I would violate the temple because I am not LDS.  If I were LDS and didn't have a temple recommend, that would be something different. Clearly then something is missing in "the standards by which I am living my life."

I can't enter the temple because I am not LDS. That is an association, a membership; a rule; not a standard of living. At least that is how I see it. You have the right certainly to ban me for entering because I am not an LDS member, but not because I "am not living certain standards that Christ has set. I am a Master Mason. I understand that only Masons in good standing with the organization may enter the lodge when it is in session. But I would never say that that a non-Mason doesn't have standards he is living that may be even higher than those of a Mason. It is simply a rule, not a standard of living. Some Anabaptist groups practice closed communion. Non-members may not participate in taking communion. It is because of a rule; it is exclusionary. It is not based on them not meeting the "standards of living that we believe Christ has set." 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I know and understand temple rules. I am intrigued by your term "those who are not living certain standards that we believe Christ has set" Can you please tell me which Christ-set standards of living that you believe I am not living, when you don't even know me?

In order to determine worthiness to enter the temple, you would have to answer questions based on these topics.  Some, such as your testimony of God, would not be a problem for non-LDS Christians.  Others though obviously would be. 

1. Your testimony of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

2. Whether you sustain the President of the Church.

3. Whether you live the law of chastity, pay tithing, are honest with others, and keep the Word of Wisdom.

4. Whether you strive to attend church, keep the covenants you have made, and keep your life in harmony with the commandments of the gospel.

Quote

I can't enter the temple because I am not LDS.

From the LDS perspective, you can't enter the temple because you have chosen not to do those things which would allow you to enter (such as baptism by someone in authority for starters).  All are invited, but not all can enter, because of choices they have made.

It's not about the membership, it's about the covenants and testimony (in more than Christ, in His church and His doctrines as well).  You haven't made the covenants that are required and you don't have the testimony that is required.  That does not mean that you are inferior to members of the church.  It's just a statement of fact.

Quote

That is an association, a membership; a rule; not a standard of living.

Exactly.  There are many mormons who are also not worthy to enter the temple.   Membership is not what determines worthiness.  

Quote

You have the right certainly to ban me for entering because I am not an LDS member, but not because I "am not living certain standards that Christ has set.

You are not living the standards that the LDS church believes Christ has set.  You can disagree with that, but I can also disagree with you about it as well.  

Quote

I am a Master Mason. I understand that only Masons in good standing with the organization may enter the lodge when it is in session. But I would never say that that a non-Mason doesn't have standards he is living that may be even higher than those of a Mason. It is simply a rule, not a standard of living.

When it comes to LDS temples, it's about beliefs and standard of living.    Both are required.

 

 

[Darren10]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 11:11 AM, bluebell said:

That doesn't make any sense so i'm guessing that you don't have any children.  

Most parents require their children to ask for things in a certain way (good manners, respectfully, etc.) but even when the child asks in the required way it still doesn't mean they will get it.  Children only get the things their parents decide to give them, regardless of the request.  That's Good Parenting 101.

Besides that, God gives blessings all the time that weren't asked for, just like parents do.  

I have five children and the most consistent thing about them is that they are inconsistent.

[Darren10]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:22 PM, Navidad said:

Interesting point. If I were to walk into the temple in Colonia Juarez tomorrow, what about me would "violate" it. Such a harsh word. 

This is what would happen to you. Better close your eyes.

 

[Darren10]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 4:53 PM, Marginal Gains said:

If a prayer from a Prophet cannot protect the temple, what is the perceived benefit for the temple from members praying for it?

Here's a previous post I made regarding Jonah. I like this passage because it is a clear example of God "altering course", or, as many an anti-Mormon like to say, God "changing His mind".

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:35 PM, Darren10 said:

 

"I am definitely in the latter camp....I still disagree with him that we can't get God to change his mind/will, at times (cf. scriptural precedent)." - I agree.

"1 Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish’s belly,

2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

(Jonah 2)

"4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

(snip)

8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

10 ¶ And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

(Jonah 3)

 

The repentance of the people of Nineveh "defied", if you will, the prophecy of God. God "felt" their repentance and held back His hand to destroy them.

Personally, I can very easily picture God asking us to pray for the Houston Temple, prayer getting us sensitive to an issue, and then allowing the temple to be flooded as a means to wake people up to get there. At least that's the impact it had on me. That I need to be more (much more) diligent to attend the temple. I think that alone makes praying for the temple all the worth while.

[Darren10]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:23 PM, Marginal Gains said:

If members don’t pray for it, will the temple not get cleaned up and repaired?

Yes. Likewise, if people do not act on service, it won't get cleaned up. however, if members do not pray for the temple, how much more willing would they be to go or, in my case, willing to go more, do you think?

[Darren10]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:28 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Do you not think the sanctity of the temple has been violated by the flood water? If the sanctity of the temple hasn’t been violated, it won’t need re-dedicating.

in 2016 it was claimed prayers saved the same temple from flooding, so why didn’t prayers save it this time? Were people not praying?

" so why didn’t prayers save it this time? Were people not praying?'

God seems to be a god who likes to remind man from time to time who's really in charge. Everybody who did not get on to the ark learned that lesson the hard way.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

This is what would happen to you. Better close your eyes.

 

I really enjoyed that movie. I know the temple rules and have no problem with not being allowed to go in. My only problem with the previous post was the statement that I would violate the sanctity of the temple by the deficit in my "standards of living." The one who posted that has no idea about my standards for my living of the Christian life. I am not LDS so I will never be given the temple recommend test, but I looked on line and found two sets of questions. In both sets there was only one I could not answer in the affirmative. I admit and confess I get bothered sometime (I know - get over it, right?) when LDS folk simply take as an apriori assumption that their standards of living are higher than any non-Mormon's. I sure would like to see the painting of Temple Hill in Pacheco that is in the Colonia Juarez lobby. I think I was told I could see that, but I am not sure. 

[Darren10]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:12 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Actually, its more akin to a parent requesting a child ask them for things in a certain way, the child complying yet still only receiving the things the parent had decided to give them in the first place regardless of the request. The request is irrelevant to the receipt of the thing.

For me when they don't get what they want (assuming I can afford it if it costs money) it's usually because they were not cute enough when they asked.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

" so why didn’t prayers save it this time? Were people not praying?'

God seems to be a god who likes to remind man from time to time who's really in charge. Everybody who did not get on to the ark learned that lesson the hard way.

Why, at no point in the flooding process (40 days and nights) did the local population not decide to get on the ark? Not when the water was ankle high, nor when it reached the knees, not at waist height, nor when it was up to their necks...

When seeing men women and children swimming about and drowning, where was the compassion of the people on the ark?

You are portraying God as a man who beats his dog occasionally just to let it know who’s boss.

[Darren10]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 8:44 AM, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Maybe I can take a stab at this? The answer is in how the religious are conditioned to view the world. The coincidence of the flood waters not touching the Houston temple in 2016 was heralded as a miracle. However, that didn't happen in the current, terrible flooding from Harvey. It looks like yet another random occurrence where sometimes things work out and sometimes they don't. Some cancer victims pass away even though many prayers and priesthood blessings were offered while some survive and it is viewed as a miracle.

Religion teaches its adherents to view the positive outcomes as being from God and to almost instantaneously justify in some way why the miracle didn't happen when it doesn't. God is mysterious the religious say. No one can know his ways. So and so was needed on the other side for some rationalized reason. So, given this conditioning, it isn't remarkable that the flooding wouldn't cause the religious to bat an eye even though the so-called miracle of 2016 didn't happen now.

There was local hype here n Houston when the Houston temple was spared flooding in 2016. I witnessed the hype. I typically do not like hype and so I disregard it while observing the situation. During the hype of the temple not flooding a former member of my ward and former poster here remarked on facebook to not credit God per se but good planning by the Church on where the temple was built. It was built on a sport which is definitely elevated so one f the last in its area not to flood. however, he pointed out, is not good planning part of God's way to do things? God should still get praise for the temple not flooding but not necessarily because there was some "unexplainable" miracle which spared it.

I liked his post and I miss him in our ward. We had great side conversations during Elder's Quorum lessons.

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

It is about consistency within constantly changing parameters.  My kids are all different ages, so family rules are not consistently applied to each of them.  Instead, the rules are tailored to fit their specific needs, strengths, weaknesses and situations that they deal with.

That wouldn't be a good way to reinforce good behavior in a child.  But it also wouldn't be a good rule to create in the first place.  It wouldn't teach good behavior in the long run.  And teaching good behavior in the long run is God's goal, not getting us to jump through hoops so that He will dispense blessings like a vending machine.

I have a spiritual quarter.

[Navidad]

I sure don't want to distract from this thread and I am scared to ask this question; but if I don't ask, how will I learn? So, if this isn't appropriate, please everyone ignore the question. 

My wife and I recently attended a sacrament meeting that was a testimony meeting. One of the ladies testifying became quite emotional while describing in great detail seeing the spirits of the dead people for whom she was being baptized "up in the balcony." She described them as smiling at her. I am aware of the Woodruff experience with the founders. Is it considered kosher (I can't think of a better word) to see dead spirits in the temple today? Does the Church leadership validate that experience? I asked that to several of the men who were there and they were very hesitant to answer, in fact they didn't answer me. Did I ask, and am I asking a question I shouldn't? It was the first time I had heard something like that in a testimony meeting. 

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why, at no point in the flooding process (40 days and nights) did the local population not decide to get on the ark? Not when the water was ankle high, nor when it reached the knees, not at waist height, nor when it was up to their necks...

When seeing men women and children swimming about and drowning, where was the compassion of the people on the ark?

You are portraying God as a man who beats his dog occasionally just to let it know who’s boss.

It was too late at that point.

Didn't you watch Fantasia 2000?

"You are portraying God as a man who beats his dog occasionally just to let it know who’s boss." - Kinda, but here we're the dog.

[Calm]

Navidad, I know bluebell, she is saying your standards are simply different, not lower than ours.  Much overlaps, in terms of moral behaviour and being a good Christian.  Other rules are attached to our membership and not required of nonmembers and would not mean the same because they do not choose to behave in such ways based on the covenants that guide our choices.

 I prefer to use the term rules rather than standards; we follow a different set of rules because we define ritual purity (not moral purity) in a different way than other faiths do.  Some of our ritual purity rules consists of moral purity, others are based on purity of our commitment to our Covenants (covenantal purity, includes obedience to those commandments we receive through Covenants and how we choose to interact with those in our covenantal community, especially in their roles and ours), some of our ritual purity is related to time/age...is the initiate who comes before the Lord been properly taught and prepared to receive greater knowledge?

A very loving and kind Christian gentile would never have been able to enter beyond the Court of the Gentiles among the Israelites, thewomen were admitted into what amounted to about 25% of the Temple and only a small number of very ritually pure men ever were allowed in the Holy of Holies and their rule/standard of ritual purity was in part determined by lineage and lots, iirc.  The Lord had given rules on who, how, and sometimes why he wanted certain things done certain ways in the temple.  

Would a good Christian feel insulted if they were barred from entering beyond the Court of Gentiles if the Jewish Temple was still standing or would they understand the ritual requirements of Jewish temple participation as being believed to be God directed and therefore breaking those rules violated the sanctity of the temple in those times?

Edited September 6, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I sure don't want to distract from this thread and I am scared to ask this question; but if I don't ask, how will I learn? So, if this isn't appropriate, please everyone ignore the question. 

My wife and I recently attended a sacrament meeting that was a testimony meeting. One of the ladies testifying became quite emotional while describing in great detail seeing the spirits of the dead people for whom she was being baptized "up in the balcony." She described them as smiling at her. I am aware of the Woodruff experience with the founders. Is it considered kosher (I can't think of a better word) to see dead spirits in the temple today? Does the Church leadership validate that experience? I asked that to several of the men who were there and they were very hesitant to answer, in fact they didn't answer me. Did I ask, and am I asking a question I shouldn't? It was the first time I had heard something like that in a testimony meeting. 

I think it's perfectly fine to see spirits in the temple. When the Nauvoo Temple was dedicated it was reported to having been on fire because of the glow. The glow wasn't fire though, it was spirits / angels who appeared there. to me that would be a testimony of the link of that temple to ancient Israelite temples which God and angels are known to have appeared.

I don't now anything about the specific event you mention so I am limited as what to say about it specifically but, perhaps, what was seen wasn't meant to tell publically. Thus others not answering your inquiry. That, or, the woman was crazy. But, I for one, can easily sense how something like that shouldn't be so readily spoken about publically. Perhaps a more one on one setting would have been more suited for such a story.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

It was too late at that point.

Didn't you watch Fantasia 2000?

"You are portraying God as a man who beats his dog occasionally just to let it know who’s boss." - Kinda, but here we're the dog.

Mormons watch movies???????? I hope just at home and not in the theater!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You will never get to take communion in a Mennonite church by having such low "standards of living!" Now don't tell me Mormons still dance?!?!  Speaking TIC - tongue in cheek - just kidding. Besides it is 2:27 in the morning. I am not responsible for anything I am writing! 

[Navidad]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Navidad, I know bluebell, she is saying your standards are simply different, not lower than ours.  Much overlaps, in terms of moral behaviour and being a good Christian.  Other rules are attached to our membership and not required of nonmembers and would not mean the same because they do not choose to behave in such ways based on the covenants that guide our choices.

 I prefer to use the term rules rather than standards; we follow a different set of rules because we define ritual purity (not moral purity) in a different way than other faiths do.  Some of our ritual purity rules consists of moral purity, others are based on purity of our commitment to our Covenants (covenantal purity, includes obedience to those commandments we receive through Covenants and how we choose to interact with those in our covenantal community, especially in their roles and ours), some of our ritual purity is related to time/age...is the initiate who comes before the Lord been properly taught and prepared to receive greater knowledge?

A very loving and kind Christian gentile would never have been able to enter beyond the Court of the Gentiles among the Israelites, thewomen were admitted into what amounted to about 25% of the Temple and only a small number of very ritually pure men ever were allowed in the Holy of Holies and their rule/standard of ritual purity was in part determined by lineage and lots, iirc.  The Lord had given rules on who, how, and sometimes why he wanted certain things done certain ways in the temple.  

Would a good Christian feel insulted if they were barred from entering beyond the Court of Gentiles if the Jewish Temple was still standing or would they understand the ritual requirements of Jewish temple participation as being believed to be God directed and therefore breaking those rules violated the sanctity of the temple in those times?

Thanks. That helps a lot. We have no concept of ritual purity in this day and age. Having said that, I understand what you are saying perfectly. We are however, constantly reminded about "worldliness" which seems to be a foreign concept to Mormons.  That is to maintain a moral purity. Perhaps the only thing similar concept to ritual purity we have is in the sacrament of foot-washing which I believe was more prevalent in the Mormon church years ago. When Woodruff went to the temple to meet about confirming his wilderness vision in 1881 (I think), the apostles had a prayer circle and washed each other's feet before deciding  

[Navidad]

18 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I think it's perfectly fine to see spirits in the temple. When the Nauvoo Temple was dedicated it was reported to having been on fire because of the glow. The glow wasn't fire though, it was spirits / angels who appeared there. to me that would be a testimony of the link of that temple to ancient Israelite temples which God and angels are known to have appeared.

I don't now anything about the specific event you mention so I am limited as what to say about it specifically but, perhaps, what was seen wasn't meant to tell publically. Thus others not answering your inquiry. That, or, the woman was crazy. But, I for one, can easily sense how something like that shouldn't be so readily spoken about publically. Perhaps a more one on one setting would have been more suited for such a story.

Thanks, that helps. 

[Darren10]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I really enjoyed that movie. I know the temple rules and have no problem with not being allowed to go in. My only problem with the previous post was the statement that I would violate the sanctity of the temple by the deficit in my "standards of living." The one who posted that has no idea about my standards for my living of the Christian life. I am not LDS so I will never be given the temple recommend test, but I looked on line and found two sets of questions. In both sets there was only one I could not answer in the affirmative. I admit and confess I get bothered sometime (I know - get over it, right?) when LDS folk simply take as an apriori assumption that their standards of living are higher than any non-Mormon's. I sure would like to see the painting of Temple Hill in Pacheco that is in the Colonia Juarez lobby. I think I was told I could see that, but I am not sure. 

"I am not LDS so I will never be given the temple recommend test" - No worries. We Mormons always have hope you'll eventually get one.