An Atheist Walks into a Temple

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Should ordinances be restricted to those who believe in the “literal” (sorry, I know that’s not the best word) explanation for how and why the ordinances are performed? For example, should someone  who finds the highest practical value in Mormonism be barred from being sealed in the Temple if they are agnostic towards the ideas of priesthood keys and power? 

Yes.
It is pure blasphemy to allow otherwise.

[Brother Bear]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
It is pure blasphemy to allow otherwise.

Interesting! Blasphemy even if they  find the ordinance to be the most meaningful event in their life?

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
It is pure blasphemy to allow otherwise.

Pretty sure blasphemy occurs in most temples weekly, then. Should they be regularly rededicated?

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Interesting! Blasphemy even if they  find the ordinance to be the most meaningful event in their life?

Yes.

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Pretty sure blasphemy occurs in most temples weekly, then. Should they be regularly rededicated?

One false believer cannot desecrate a temple.

[Amulek]

Hmm...I opened this thread and thought it was going to be a joke. Sort of like, 'A Rabbi walks into a bar...' kind of thing.

In terms of the OP, I think JLHPROF's comments seem to be pretty much on target. If you don't have even an inkling of faith in the ordinances performed in the temple then it's probably best if you don't attend. 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.

One false believer cannot desecrate a temple.

How many would it take?

 

[Brother Bear]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.

One false believer cannot desecrate a temple.

 

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Hmm...I opened this thread and thought it was going to be a joke. Sort of like, 'A Rabbi walks into a bar...' kind of thing.

In terms of the OP, I think JLHPROF's comments seem to be pretty much on target. If you don't have even an inkling of faith in the ordinances performed in the temple then it's probably best if you don't attend. 

Let me give you another scenario. I am deeply affected by the story of the fall. I find it to be one of the most beautiful, symbolic descriptions of the human experience I have ever read, and I find it gives me comfort and helps me to desire to be better. If, however, I were to be agnostic with regards to existence of Adam and Eve, and perhaps lean towards a metaphorical interpretation of them, would you consider it blasphemy for me to participate in the endowment?

Edited January 26, 2018 by Brother Bear

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org.....sarcasm, no such copyrighted document or offer exists to my knowledge) , I found some of the discussion regarding what beliefs should be disclosed in a TR interview interesting. Rather than derail the thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on what beliefs should, in your opinion, bar someone from obtaining a TR. 

let’s imagine there is a member in your ward who pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary, but for whatever reason holds and discloses in an interview (but doesn’t preach to members), a non-traditional belief. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

- Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets.

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

- Believing that there are many “true” churches

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

One has to accept the basic concepts of the restoration. How can one believe that Adam and Eve are symbolic figures yet go through a temple session when they are portrayed as such.  They are basically declaring the temple version to be a lie.  The list can go on and on.  Giving a good life and having good moral standards is important but it still is not enough. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe the Temple Recommend interview should just be one question:

Why do you want to go to the Temple?

That would probably tell the interviewer much more than all those other questions, and it would be much more clear.

This has become my clarifying question for the missionaries when they want my buy-in for a baptism for someone who appears to have a 100% chance of never being active:

Why do they want to be baptized?

They've seen my point, in evaluating investigators, and it has helped them self-police in an appropriate manner.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Let me give you another scenario. I am deeply affected by the story of the fall. I find it to be one of the most beautiful, symbolic descriptions of the human experience I have ever read, and I find it gives me comfort and helps me to desire to be better. If, however, I were to be agnostic with regards to existence of Adam and Eve, and perhaps lean towards a metaphorical interpretation of them, would you consider it blasphemy for me to participate in the endowment?

Believing Adam and Eve to be metaphorical or literal are irrelevant to the covenants being made or the elements of the endowment that should be taken literally.
There are elements of the temple that if entered into without belief would make for blasphemy.
 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

let’s imagine there is a member in your ward who pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary, but for whatever reason holds and discloses in an interview (but doesn’t preach to members), a non-traditional belief. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

- Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets.

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

- Believing that there are many “true” churches

I depart from smac on his analysis (which I appreciated):

1) In the first place, I know that this is a thought exercise, but I find it very hard to believe that a person wit most of the above thoughts would "pay a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnify their calling, always do home or visiting teaching, be an excellent member missionary, etc."

For the sake of argument, though:

1) The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction --- I shared my thought on this. To me, this would pertain to questions 3 and 4. At minimum, I would ask them to explain in better detail, and to also explain why they feel this wouldn't disqualify them.

2)  Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view --- Very clearly pertains to question 1. It is incompatible with core LDS doctrine on the nature of "God the eternal Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost." If you believe that, you have a completely different belief than core LDS doctrine on the nature and being of God. We don't have very many "orthodoxy" beliefs, but this is one of them.

3) Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality --- See #2 above. If you're atheistic or agnostic, then you can't honestly answer question 1 in the affirmative. I would ask them to explain why they feel that wouldn't apply here.

4) Believing there is no longer a need for prophets. --- Directly pertains to questions 3 and 4. If you believe there is no longer a need for prophets, then how can you say that you have a testimony of "the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days?" And what, exactly, does it then mean that you "sustain the president and the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?"

5) Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures ---- no issue, whatsoever as far as temple worthiness. I am quite fundamentalist in my personal beliefs on this, but not even I see this as an issue. 

6) Believing that there are many “true” churches --- See #4 above. Please explain your testimony of the restoration and modern prophets in light of this belief, and why you qualify for the temple. 

[Brother Bear]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Believing Adam and Eve to be metaphorical or literal are irrelevant to the covenants being made or the elements of the endowment that should be taken literally.
There are elements of the temple that if entered into without belief would make for blasphemy.
 

So what is so special about certain “literal” beliefs? Let’s assume you have two people: one is Literal Believer and the other is Non-literal Believer. Literal Believer believes every word and ordinance in the Temple to the way the world really is. Non-literal Believer accepts every word and ordinance in the Temple to be allegorical and is agnostic as to whether the Temple ordinances describe the world as it really is. Literal Believer enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances (like many people I know). Non-literal Believer is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented). Where do you see the blasphemy in this scenario?

[Calm]

Making a covenant with someone you don't believe exists is not really a covenant, imo.

Is it blasphemy?  Are you taking the Lord's name in vain if you covenant with him while not believing he exists...even if you act as if the covenant is real in other ways?

I am uncertain.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

So what is so special about certain “literal” beliefs? Let’s assume you have two people: one is Literal Believer and the other is Non-literal Believer. Literal Believer believes every word and ordinance in the Temple to the way the world really is. Non-literal Believer accepts every word and ordinance in the Temple to be allegorical and is agnostic as to whether the Temple ordinances describe the world as it really is. Literal Believer enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances (like many people I know). Non-literal Believer is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented). Where do you see the blasphemy in this scenario?

Let me put it this way.
God makes a deeply personal promise to his children.  He promises that if they exercise faith and enter into a covenant through an ordinance and live up to it that they will receive certain blessings.
He even ensures that that covenant can be fulfilled in spite of his children's mistakes by allowing his only begotten Son to suffer, bleed, and die so they can receive that blessing.
In order that all this can be done he reveals the most holy and sacred of ceremonies that have existed from all eternity to his children that this whole process can be achieved.

Mr. Non-literal believer decides to take God up on his promise, but doesn't actually believe any aspect of it to be real, just nice and symbolic.  He goes through the motions, maybe even becomes a "better person".  But he doesn't believe a word of what God has revealed is actually true.

You don't see how that would be insulting to God who gave everything sacred he possessed, and therefore blasphemous?  At the very minimum it's hypocrisy. 
 

[Calm]

But he does believe the principles of living a better life to be true, does he not?  That is why he commits to living them even if he doesn't see any authority behind them save for the authority inherent in doing good to others and himself by living a better life.

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Literal Believer enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances (like many people I know). Non-literal Believer is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented). Where do you see the blasphemy in this scenario?

Why do you assume that Literal Believer "enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances," while Non-literal Believer "is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented)." This smacks to me of wishful-thinking projection, with a little "Brights vs. knuckle-dragging rubes."

In my experience, LB is at least as likely to be as transformed as N-lB, but in actuality is much more tangibly transformed, because of his tangible, literal belief that the background, underpinnings, and reality of what is depicted is, well, reality.

Edited January 27, 2018 by rongo

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Why do you assume that Literal Believer "enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances," while Non-literal Believer "is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented)."

In my experience, LB is at least as likely to be as transformed as N-lB, but in actuality is much more tangibly transformed, because of his tangible, literal belief that the background, underpinnings, and reality of what is depicted is, well, reality.

I think he is creating one scenario for his thought experiment, not making any generalized observation.

It is possible as I know personally one LB who went to the temple weekly because he desired to fulfill his covenant out of love for God and others, but told me he was bored by the experience and had a hard time staying awake.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm

[Brother Bear]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why do you assume that Literal Believer "enjoys the peace of the Temple but doesn’t get much out of the ordinances," while Non-literal Believer "is transformed by their temple experience (becomes more loving, kind, honest, others-oriented)." This smacks to me of wishful-thinking projection, with a little "Brights vs. knuckle-dragging rubes."

In my experience, LB is at least as likely to be as transformed as N-lB, but in actuality is much more tangibly transformed, because of his tangible, literal belief that the background, underpinnings, and reality of what is depicted is, well, reality.

It merely an intentional contrast in a thought exercise to understand specific beliefs. 

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear

[Brother Bear]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Let me put it this way.
God makes a deeply personal promise to his children.  He promises that if they exercise faith and enter into a covenant through an ordinance and live up to it that they will receive certain blessings.
He even ensures that that covenant can be fulfilled in spite of his children's mistakes by allowing his only begotten Son to suffer, bleed, and die so they can receive that blessing.
In order that all this can be done he reveals the most holy and sacred of ceremonies that have existed from all eternity to his children that this whole process can be achieved.

Mr. Non-literal believer decides to take God up on his promise, but doesn't actually believe any aspect of it to be real, just nice and symbolic.  He goes through the motions, maybe even becomes a "better person".  But he doesn't believe a word of what God has revealed is actually true.

You don't see how that would be insulting to God who gave everything sacred he possessed, and therefore blasphemous?  At the very minimum it's hypocrisy. 
 

I would phrase it this way: NLB has tasted of the good fruits of applying lessons learned from the Temple but is agnostic as to whether the ordinances of the Temple came from a literal, corporeal Heavenly Father. NLB treasures the good fruit without worrying about those things he can’t know.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Brother Bear

[The Nehor]

If you are not worthy to heal devils and cast out the sick you are unworthy of the temple.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

After reviewing the thread about John Dehlin’s patented, rejection-proof guide to Temple Recommend interviews©️ (available for $29.95 at mormonstories.org.....sarcasm, no such copyrighted document or offer exists to my knowledge) , I found some of the discussion regarding what beliefs should be disclosed in a TR interview interesting. Rather than derail the thread, I wanted to get your thoughts on what beliefs should, in your opinion, bar someone from obtaining a TR. 

let’s imagine there is a member in your ward who pays a full tithing, keep the WoW, law of chastity, magnifies their calling, always does home or visiting teaching, is an excellent member missionary, but for whatever reason holds and discloses in an interview (but doesn’t preach to members), a non-traditional belief. For example:

- The belief that the BoM or other standard works is inspired fiction

- Holding more of a trinitarian view of God than the three distinct personages view

- Being agnostic or atheistic, but viewing Mormonism as a more nontheistic form of spirituality

- Believing there is no longer a need for prophets.

- Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures

- Believing that there are many “true” churches

Obviously the list could go on. But what I’m really interested in hearing is not what beliefs you simply disagree with, but beliefs that you feel should disqualify or call into question one’s ability to obtain a recommend. 

The bishop (and stake pres) should probably admonish the TR interviewee that he is in the wrong place for such a discussion -- for most such views, although "believing there is no longer a need for prophets" might violate the necessity to sustain the current prophet.

In other cases, such as "Believing Darwinian Evolution and viewing Adam and Eve as purely symbolic figures" may be entirely acceptable within LDS orthodoxy, since the Church has no position on biological evolution, and virtually the entire BYU biology faculty accepts biological evolution and they have TRs.  In addition, many aspects of the Creation and Garden episodes of the endowment are meant to be taken as symbolic/figurative.  It is a ritual, after all.  Not a history lesson.

If he can answer correctly the basic TR questions, he should receive a TR.  Unless, of course, he suddenly confesses to being an axe murderer.

[kiwi57]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If we're going for a litmus test, how about these items 

• Belief in infallible prophets, that the thinking is done when they speak and that they can't lead the church astray

I congratulate you, HFT, for the skill and cunning you display in juxtaposing those points as if they are somehow connected; when in fact all you are really doing is trying to discredit the last point by association with the first two.

Would you object to being included in a list similar to "Matt Slick, Ed Decker and hope_for_things?"

As has recently been discussed here ad nauseam, there is no belief in "infallible prophets." The old "thinking has been done" chestnut has been done to death.

And no, the prophet will not lead us astray, and has not done so. That promise is not, as some have have mischievously tried to claim, an attempt to establish infallibility by stealth. Actually, for anyone who actually reflects upon such things, it's actually the opposite: a rather clear, if implicit, acknowledgement that prophets are fallible. The point is that the Lord isn't going to let their fallibility ruin His program.

Quote

• Belief that the scriptures are always literal and historical
• Belief that every word written in scripture is directly from God and that the most simplistic contemporary surface level interpretation is the correct one  
• Believing that anytime someone "has a bad feeling about this" that this bad feeling is clear spiritual communication from God and that these things should always be avoided
• Belief that God is a capricious arbiter of rules and regulations, and that God is vengeful and angry and constantly watching what we do
• Belief in extreme end of the world predictions, especially when those beliefs lead to stockpiling resources and making unwise financial decisions

What did that poor straw man ever do to you, that you feel compelled to beat him so unmercifully?

Quote

• And lastly my favorite - Believing that someone's beliefs are important criteria for participation in the temple.  The privileging of beliefs over behaviors.  The desire to set boundaries and judge differences of opinion in order to exclude people and put one person above another when it comes to who is worthy of worshiping God.  

The Temple is a place for believing Latter-day Saints. I'm sorry you find that so threatening that you need to caricature it so badly.

Edited January 27, 2018 by kiwi57

[Brother Bear]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would have a hard time with this one.

This is fairly vague.  Not sure.

This one is rather clearly outside the parameters of a TR.  

This one is rather clearly outside the parameters of a TR.  

Evolutionary theory is fine.  Adam and Eve as fictional . . . not sure.  That seems a bit far down the rabbit hole.  

Again, vague.  Probably not.  Rejection of D&C 1:30 would seem to be potentially problematic.

I want as many good and decent people in the Church as possible.  However, we are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  While the Church can and does accommodate a spectrum of beliefs as to many issues, that spectrum is not infinite.

My assessment, of course, would A) be limited to those within my stewardship, and B) be subject to ratification or supersession by those in authority above me.

Thanks,

-Smac

But surely even a person who is agnostic towards its dogmas, or takes a non-literal view, can still exercise faith in Mormonism by following the commandments. Why is literal belief in the dogmas considered so universally important?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

But surely even a person who is agnostic towards its dogmas, or takes a non-literal view, can still exercise faith in Mormonism by following the commandments. Why is literal belief in the dogmas considered so universally important?

A literal belief in some things is required in order for many blessings to be realized.

A literal belief in Christ's atonement is the only way to fully receive a remission of sin.  You can become the best person on the planet but your sin will stay with you until paid for.

A literal belief in resurrection is a key principle of Christianity.

One of the greatest things about Mormonism is that it addresses more than the warm fuzzies and love thy neighbor that the nondenominational Churches emphasize.  It addresses the very literal events and reality of God.

[Brother Bear]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I congratulate you, HFT, for the skill and cunning you display in juxtaposing those points as if they are somehow connected; when in fact all you are really doing is trying to discredit the last point by association with the first two.

Would you object to being included in a list similar to "Matt Slick, Ed Decker and hope_for_things?"

As has recently been discussed here ad nauseam, there is no belief in "infallible prophets." The old "thinking has been done" chestnut has been done to death.

And no, the prophet will not lead us astray, and has not done so. That promise is not, as some have have mischievously tried to claim, an attempt to establish infallibility by stealth. Actually, for anyone who actually reflects upon such things, it's actually the opposite: a rather clear, if implicit, acknowledgement that prophets are fallible. The point is that the Lord isn't going to let their fallibility ruin His program.

What did that poor straw man ever do to you, that you feel compelled to beat him so unmercifully?

The Temple is a place for believing Latter-day Saints. I'm sorry you find that so threatening that you need to caricature it so badly.

Oh joy, kiwi’s here. Rather than turn this thread into another one of your ad hominem, axe-grinding sessions, please contribute by thoughtfully describing what beliefs you think matter for a person to be a “Believing Latter-day Saint.”