Temple Recommend Questions

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I recognize that that is the reality of the situation as far as those who are not members of the church are concerned.

However, a person who is a member of the church and is seeking entrance into the house of the Lord to participate in some of the most sacred aspect of the gospel should have a different point of view.  For that person not recognize the universality of the priesthood would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the power and authority of God given to his servants on earth.

I don't think that universality is necessarily in question from the position I was articulating.  This same person could believe that God is working with other groups of people in different ways.  There are plenty of quotes from church leaders that could be used to support a more expansive view of universality.  

[churchistrue]

16 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Church leadership has laid out clear questions to determine one’s temple worthiness.

If someone answers “no” (or incorrectly) to any of the questions, does that put the bishop or stake president in a position in which they MUST not issue or renew the recommend?  Or, is there discretion given to local leaders to give leeway as they follow the spirit in instances in which a member does not affirm the questions correctly?

Asking for a friend...

A TR interview is for the purpose of getting a TR. ie if the answer is no, the person probably wouldn't come for the interview, so the bishop is expecting a yes answer. With that expectation, most likely the bishop or stake prez would probe the answer, trying to coach the person to change the answer to get the recommend. For example, "no" to question "do you keep the law of chastity?" No? OK, how are you not keeping the law of chastity, do you have something to repent of? Well, I have impure thoughts. Is that it? Yes. Well, that doesn't keep you from being unworthy from the temple? Are you sure? I feel really guilty. Yes, I'm sure. You're normal. If you're not acting on those thoughts, you're fine. OK, then, I guess it's a yes. 

If the interview candidate is adamant about the no answer or if the clarifying questions bring out detail that would cause the bishop to agree with the candidate that they aren't fit for TR, then they would not give the recommend. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Why someone wants to lie, mislead, fudge on the questions confuses me. If you can't answer the authority questions then you are saying that all the work done in the temple has no eternal effect and you are just wanting a VIP ticket for the elites social club. Go join the Shriners.

I'm not advocating lying or misleading.  I recognize that many people within the church take a very black and white literalistic perspective, the correlated material you've been fed has helped produce this culture.  There are different perspectives a person can take and different ways of viewing things.  Some would even say that the questions are intentionally written to be broadly interpreted.  Do what you think is best and what sits well with your conscience.  

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm really just recommending that he thinks about the questions in a slightly different way.  Because of leadership roulette, there is a wide range of responses from people, like you've demonstrated here.  Its probably best to just answer yes or no to avoid having leaders "smell a rat" and doing further investigation as you've expressed.  

I don't think the Temple Recommend interview should be an investigation by the leaders administering the questions.  I think people are to self evaluate, and the leader is just there to administer the questions, but the person being interviewed is the person who should decide whether they are worthy or not.  

If people give "nuanced," Clinton-esque answers, rather than yes or no, then the leader is going to follow-up to see what exactly the deal is. The answers invite and demand the follow-up.

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats just the reality of the situation.  Church leaders don't have any authority over anyone, but the people that give them that authority (members of the church.)  Non-members don't recognize them as having any authority over their lives, and so in reality they don't have any authority. 

If someone who believes in voodoo came up to you and told you they were putting a curse on you, would you recognize their authority to do so?  I wouldn't.  

I agree that, to individuals who don't believe the Church has authority over them, the Church doesn't have authority over them from a secular perspective. 

But, to those who believe that the keys are real, those keys are real, even when people don't believe them. People will be held accountable for their response or lack of response to them (from the believing perspective).

No, I wouldn't recognize their authority with a voodoo curse, but if voodoo were real and the curse were real, my rejection of it wouldn't change that fact. Even if I genuinely think it's ridiculous. And, I probably wouldn't go to a voodoo practitioner for a voodoo recommend if I believed that.  

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Explain in practical terms how any authority from an Latter-day Saint church leader really has any reach outside of the believers/members of the church?  They don't recognize their authority and it doesn't impact their lives.  

I could claim to have authority over you, and how would that make any difference in your life?  You would ignore it, and that is your right.  

Sure, that's their right, but I don't have to give them a TR just the same.  

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, changed said:

I said "No" to:

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?  (this is also a testimony in the apostasy - I do not like the idea of God leaving the entire world in darkness for hundreds of years, of turning His back on everyone.)

Nevertheless, we see repeated examples of apostasy. What do you believe Jesus meant here:

John 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

What do the apostles mean here:

Acts 3:21

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of ^arestitution of all things, which God hath ^bspoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

res·ti·tu·tion

/ˌrestəˈt(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/

noun

1. the restoration of something lost 

Quote

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?  (The only person on Earth?  I find no scriptural support that there should only be one prophet at a time - I believe God has many sheep - many tribes - lost to church members perhaps, but not lost to God... Sustaining all local leaders?  I will not sustain leaders I do not know... made the mistakes of previously raising my hand and support a child molester in their leadership calling - I will not do that again. )

I said "No" and I do not have a TR. 

Nowhere has the Lord said there is only one prophet at a time. However, there is only one at a time who holds certain keys. There can only be one at a time to hold the key of establishing a covenant of the Lord.

D&C 132:6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

But as has been pointed out all the apostles are also sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. All church members have received a gift of revelation, and can choose to exercise it. They exercise it when receiving confirmation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, which promises a gift of revelation to disciples. God will manifest dreams and visions to whomsoever He will. Whenever Church leaders are moved by  the Holy Spirit to say something, the Lord has said it is scripture - so not only the prophet can receive scripture. However, right now only the president of the Church has authority to make any changes to the temple covenant. Do you believe someone else has this authority or key? If not, then you shouldn't have a problem with the question.

If you know of a local authority who is in error, and committing sins worthy of church discipline, such as sexual abuse, or adultery, then I believe it is your duty to speak up, and say you cannot sustain that person and why. Otherwise, I personally do not have a problem with sustaining Church leaders I personally do not know - no one can know them all. If you do not know your local leaders, then perhaps you should make an effort to know them more to a point where you have some confidence in them. If you say you cannot sustain local leaders in Kalamazoo Michigan, because you do not know them, I think you will probably still be able to get a recommend. I am sure that comes up sometimes. 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by RevTestament

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think that universality is necessarily in question from the position I was articulating.  This same person could believe that God is working with other groups of people in different ways.  There are plenty of quotes from church leaders that could be used to support a more expansive view of universality.  

Agreed that God works in the lives of all his children. 

However, the necessary priesthood authority necessary to act in the name of God for the salvation of those children is invested only the in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  That is the purpose of the church.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that, to individuals who don't believe the Church has authority over them, the Church doesn't have authority over them from a secular perspective. 

But, to those who believe that the keys are real, those keys are real, even when people don't believe them. People will be held accountable for their response or lack of response to them (from the believing perspective).

No, I wouldn't recognize their authority with a voodoo curse, but if voodoo were real and the curse were real, my rejection of it wouldn't change that fact. Even if I genuinely think it's ridiculous. And, I probably wouldn't go to a voodoo practitioner for a voodoo recommend if I believed that.  

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated.  There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts.  

As for going to the temple, there may be many reasons a person wants to go to the temple.  Right now, if I wanted to go, it would not be because I believe the temple is literally necessary from a saving ordinance perspective.  It would be because I want to participate with people that I care about, in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants.  And just to be clear, this represents an evolution for me personally.  If you had asked me even one year ago if I would want to attend the temple again, I would have told you no.  Emotionally I think I've been maturing in how I view my church membership and its opening a door in my life for possibly participating again.  And I'm starting to think about how I might approach a recommend interview with personal authenticity and integrity.  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Agreed that God works in the lives of all his children. 

However, the necessary priesthood authority necessary to act in the name of God for the salvation of those children is invested only the in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  That is the purpose of the church.

I like to think of authority for the church or any other institution as the legal right to act for an in behalf of that institution.  If I want a drivers license I have to go to the DMV to get it, I can't go to my neighbor and have them give me a valid drivers license.  Similarly, I can't go to a Catholic priest to get membership in the CoJCoLDS.  

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like to think of authority for the church or any other institution as the legal right to act for an in behalf of that institution.  If I want a drivers license I have to go to the DMV to get it, I can't go to my neighbor and have them give me a valid drivers license.  Similarly, I can't go to a Catholic priest to get membership in the CoJCoLDS.  

That's true, as far as it goes, but only with respect to internal authority. We can't excommunicate a Presbyterian from his church, and no one thinks that we can. That isn't really what we're talking about when we talk about priesthood/ordinance interviews. That is much more big picture and has to do with salvation and essential ordinances. 

 

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated. 

How does it square? Through orthodox Mormon doctrines and ordinances of the temple. That's the whole point of temple work for the dead. 

There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts. 

But even this universalist strain runs straight through . . . the temple and temple authority. 

As for going to the temple, there may be many reasons a person wants to go to the temple.  Right now, if I wanted to go, it would not be because I believe the temple is literally necessary from a saving ordinance perspective.  It would be because I want to participate with people that I care about, in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants.  And just to be clear, this represents an evolution for me personally.  If you had asked me even one year ago if I would want to attend the temple again, I would have told you no.  Emotionally I think I've been maturing in how I view my church membership and its opening a door in my life for possibly participating again.  And I'm starting to think about how I might approach a recommend interview with personal authenticity and integrity. 

I applaud and encourage your desire and thinking about returning to the temple. It has to be for the right reasons, though, and simply wanting to participate with people in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants --- while not believing in the efficacy or relevance or application as taught by the Church --- isn't a good enough reason to be allowed to. It has to be for the right reasons and on the Church's terms. 

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's true, as far as it goes, but only with respect to internal authority. We can't excommunicate a Presbyterian from his church, and no one thinks that we can. That isn't really what we're talking about when we talk about priesthood/ordinance interviews. That is much more big picture and has to do with salvation and essential ordinances. 

To expand on how I'm thinking about this:  If a person believes something has an effect, then the result of this belief manifests itself in a very real way both emotionally and physically (think of the placebo effect.)  So in a sense it is very real for that person, even if it is something they are imagining based on a narrative they've been told and that they believe in.  

I recognize that in this case you believe the church is claiming exclusive authority from God to administer ordinances that are literally necessary for all of human kind.  That is certainly how some church leaders have articulated their opinions on the subject of authority.  It is very simple and literal interpretation.  I see other ways of looking at authority, other strains of thinking throughout history within Mormonism and from the broader Judaeo/Christian traditions.  

So for me, authority doesn't work that way, even if some people within contemporary Mormonism think it does.  Does that make sense, my perspective is not an attempt to say everyone should think of it my way, but instead to say that there are other ways of viewing this subject.  

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated. 

How does it square? Through orthodox Mormon doctrines and ordinances of the temple. That's the whole point of temple work for the dead. 

Joseph's vision places Alvin in a saved condition in the Celestial Kingdom, prior to vicarious rituals that were innovated later.  So essentially Alvin didn't need the temple work to get there, he was already there.  

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts. 

But even this universalist strain runs straight through . . . the temple and temple authority. 

Don't read the temple theology backwards into this earlier timeline.  These earlier ideas preceded the temple theology.  

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I applaud and encourage your desire and thinking about returning to the temple. It has to be for the right reasons, though, and simply wanting to participate with people in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants --- while not believing in the efficacy or relevance or application as taught by the Church --- isn't a good enough reason to be allowed to. It has to be for the right reasons and on the Church's terms. 

I'm very concerned about the reasons I do things, probably too self critical to be honest.  The reasons I was attending church were the first main motivation for me to take a sabbatical from attendance.  And have complicated my back and forth attendance ever since.  I'm always thinking about the reasons when it comes to my participation in church.  

But just because my reasoning might not satisfy you personally, it doesn't mean it won't work for me.  Just like I wouldn't expect you to conform to my reasons for doing things, I won't be judging myself based on the reasoning of others.  I have to feel good about what I'm doing and I believe I think through these things a lot more than most people do.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm thinking of the vision/dream Joseph had of his brother Alvin, being in heaven, even though he died before he was baptized.  How does that ideal square with later theological conceptions?  This dream happened before baptisms for the dead and temple rituals were innovated.  There is a strain within Mormonism of a more universal salvation, the BoM has some of this as well.  The way I look at it, you can't dismiss these elements within the tradition.  Some people might interpret them differently by saying certain ideas supersede others, but I don't think its that simple to dismiss certain concepts.  

I don't dismiss it, I just think Joseph was seeing the future. My guess is that Alvin is still not in the celestial kingdom, but is waiting in paradise like many others. The dream had the effect of allowing Joseph to know that if Alvin could have been baptized in the Church, he would have. I bet Alvin's work has indeed been done in the temple, but even so, I don't think he is in the celestial kingdom quite yet, even if Joseph may have thought he was.

Quote

As for going to the temple, there may be many reasons a person wants to go to the temple.  Right now, if I wanted to go, it would not be because I believe the temple is literally necessary from a saving ordinance perspective.  It would be because I want to participate with people that I care about, in symbolic rituals that have meaning for various participants.  And just to be clear, this represents an evolution for me personally.  If you had asked me even one year ago if I would want to attend the temple again, I would have told you no.  Emotionally I think I've been maturing in how I view my church membership and its opening a door in my life for possibly participating again.  And I'm starting to think about how I might approach a recommend interview with personal authenticity and integrity.  

I am glad  you are thinking about going, but like others would dissuade you from going "to participate with people that I care about." The covenants in the temple are intensely personal, and should not be undertaken for the sake of participation with others that you care about, but with the intent of participating with the Lord, because you care about Him.  Oh, and I don't think about temple ordinances as "saving ordinances" with the possible exception of baptism for the dead, but as ordinances of exaltation or sanctification. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by RevTestament

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph's vision places Alvin in a saved condition in the Celestial Kingdom, prior to vicarious rituals that were innovated later.  So essentially Alvin didn't need the temple work to get there, he was already there.  

A vision need not necessarily be in the "now."  Section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants relates Joseph F Smith seeing the Savior organized the teaching of the dead in between the time of his crucifixion and resurrection.  Both John and Nephi were given visions of things that would happen. 

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is not a good idea to give aid and comfort to apostates.

Awww, so you wouldn't give me a glass of water and a shoulder to cry on?  

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Awww, so you wouldn't give me a glass of water and a shoulder to cry on?  

😊If this were true, Smith should not be allowed into the Temple....

[MiserereNobis]

57 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

😊If this were true, Smith should not be allowed into the Temple....

I'm sure it's not -- I was just teasing him  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I don't dismiss it, I just think Joseph was seeing the future. My guess is that Alvin is still not in the celestial kingdom, but is waiting in paradise like many others. The dream had the effect of allowing Joseph to know that if Alvin could have been baptized in the Church, he would have. I bet Alvin's work has indeed been done in the temple, but even so, I don't think he is in the celestial kingdom quite yet, even if Joseph may have thought he was.

Considering Joseph also saw his own mother and father in the CK in his vision and both of them were still living, his father sitting next to him at the time, definitely a vision of the future.

Quote

saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

Quote

The Kirtland Temple was nearly complete in January 1836. For many weeks before its dedication on 27 March, the brethren held classes and meetings in it. The Prophet recorded that on Thursday, 21 January 1836, “at early candle-light I met with the Presidency at the west school room, in the Temple, to attend to the ordinance of anointing our heads with holy oil; also the Councils of Kirtland and Zion met in the two adjoining rooms, and waited in prayer while we attended to the ordinance. I took the oil in my left hand, Father Smith being seated before me, and the remainder of the Presidency encircled him round about. We then stretched our right hands towards heaven, and blessed the oil, and consecrated it in the name of Jesus Christ.

“We then laid our hands upon our aged Father Smith, and invoked the blessings of heaven. I then anointed his head with the consecrated oil, and sealed many blessings upon him. The Presidency then in turn laid their hands upon his head, beginning at the oldest, until they had all laid their hands upon him, and pronounced such blessings upon his head, as the Lord put into their hearts, all blessing him to be our Patriarch, to anoint our heads, and attend to all duties that pertain to that office. The Presidency then took the seat in their turn, according to their age, beginning at the oldest, and received their anointing and blessing under the hands of Father Smith. And in my turn, my father anointed my head, and sealed upon me the blessings of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as Moses led him in days of old; also the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. All of the Presidency laid their hands upon me, and pronounced upon my head many prophecies and blessings, many of which I shall not notice at this time. But as Paul said, so say I, let us come to visions and revelations.” (History of the Church, 2:379–80.)

This night the spirit of prophecy and revelation was poured out on the brethren. In addition to the vision of the celestial kingdom, the Prophet Joseph Smith saw in vision the Savior standing in the midst of the present Twelve Apostles who were laboring in foreign lands, and he saw the Twelve Apostles and the Presidency in the celestial kingdom. Many of the other brethren saw glorious visions and received the ministration of angels. Some even saw the face of the Savior. (See History of the Church, 2:381–82).

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-137-vision-of-the-celestial-kingdom?lang=eng

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph's vision places Alvin in a saved condition in the Celestial Kingdom, prior to vicarious rituals that were innovated later.  So essentially Alvin didn't need the temple work to get there, he was already there.  

Nobody is in the Celestial kingdom yet.  We still have to wait for final judgment after the millennium. Joseph's vision was futuristic.  In his vision he also saw his mother and father in the Celestial kingdom...they were still alive at the time of the vision.  

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Considering Joseph also saw his own mother and father in the CK in his vision and both of them were still living, his father sitting next to him at the time, definitely a vision of the future.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-137-vision-of-the-celestial-kingdom?lang=eng

You beat me to it!

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Nobody is in the Celestial kingdom yet.  We still have to wait for final judgment after the millennium. Joseph's vision was futuristic.  In his vision he also saw his mother and father in the Celestial kingdom...they were still alive at the time of the vision.  

Just a small point of order, but I believe the resurrected are in the  CK. How else are they going to "live and reign with Christ for a thousand years?" I have strong doubts the resurrected remain in the spirit world with the unresurrected.

[Coop]

Prior to my last interview I raised a number of problems with the policy changes dealing with same sex marriage with the Stake President.  He said he didn’t care what I thought, he only cared what I did and when it came time for to renew my recommend he was true to his word and signed it.

The next time both my wife and I went in together and this so flustered the councillor that he didn’t blink an eye when I said yes to the question about affiliating with apostates and no to sustaining our local leaders.

I was told by my Stake President that there are changes being considered in the interview questions.  When that might be is anyone guess.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't dismiss it, I just think Joseph was seeing the future. My guess is that Alvin is still not in the celestial kingdom, but is waiting in paradise like many others. The dream had the effect of allowing Joseph to know that if Alvin could have been baptized in the Church, he would have. I bet Alvin's work has indeed been done in the temple, but even so, I don't think he is in the celestial kingdom quite yet, even if Joseph may have thought he was.

Well, this vision was specifically about the celestial kingdom, and it doesn't say that if Alvin could have been baptized he would have.  Rather it says that if he would have "received it" meaning the gospel, then he would be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  Also it says that children who haven't arrived at the age of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom.  The whole concept of baptism for the dead doesn't come around until later in the historical timeline.  

Quote

1 The heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am glad  you are thinking about going, but like others would dissuade you from going "to participate with people that I care about." The covenants in the temple are intensely personal, and should not be undertaken for the sake of participation with others that you care about, but with the intent of participating with the Lord, because you care about Him. 

I was thinking specifically about attending a temple sealing ceremony for a family member.  In that context, every sealing I've ever attended in my life has been precisely for the purpose of supporting the people I care about.  I think its a different focus for the couple being sealed since they are the ones making the covenant, but I'm talking about attending for the explicit purpose of participating in a community building ritual, and I think all rituals have a communal component to them, and it can be a powerful and moving experience for everyone involved.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Coop said:

I was told by my Stake President that there are changes being considered in the interview questions.  When that might be is anyone guess.

Did he give any hints as to what kind of changes?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

A vision need not necessarily be in the "now."  Section 138 of the Doctrine & Covenants relates Joseph F Smith seeing the Savior organized the teaching of the dead in between the time of his crucifixion and resurrection.  Both John and Nephi were given visions of things that would happen. 

I agree that present leaders can re-envision the past through a contemporary lens, that has happened throughout history and continues in our modern day, this is why religion is constantly evolving to suit the needs of the present.   This is the principle of applying the scriptures to ourselves, and there is value in that, but there is also value in understanding the historical context of scripture and the meaning that it had for the original writers and their day.  I'm just pointing out that specifically Joseph's vision of the kingdoms did not require temple rituals at that time.  The purpose of the temple in Kirtland also was not for rituals that exalt, the endowment of power idea was for missionary service at that time, but not a requirement for exaltation, all of that theology came through later innovations.