Nonnegotiable

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am clueless why he went that route, so I got major talent, lol. 

It's the fact that after so many years posting with you that he thinks you would lie or deceive to win an argument or score "points" that I think takes talent.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the fact that after so many years posting with you that he thinks you would lie or deceive to win an argument or score "points" that I think takes talent.  

I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes committing lies and deceptions is immoral and actually sinning (which includes me) would rack up any demerit points for some gameplaying on this board. Since I believe it is the little sins that are easy to dismiss as important with the excuse of ‘it’s not hurting anyone, not really’ that are most likely to keep us out of the Celestial Kingdom because habits of thought repeated enough can change who we are, I try very hard not to given into those temptations. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, he was a disciple of Christ before baptism because Christ had his heart.  Baptism is not required for one to be a disciple.  Many baptized people are not disciples and many unbaptized are.

Thank you for this. Three brief sentences with so much meat and truth packed into them. Well done!

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I still don't understand.

We have temple recommend interviews, but Christ already knows our answers. Interviews are for US to put things into perspective, and see how comfortable we are with our progression.

Christ knows every thought in every heart, or silent prayer would not work.  And no, don't ask me How He does it.  It is a wonderful paradigm in which to believe,  but I am CERTAIN he does it, because He has blessed me with answers I could never have come up with my self

And your new bishop may have quite different opinions than your old one, I have not heard of non-members teaching lessons, praying for the company, or speaking in sacrament meetings.

I suspect no one else on the board has either

OK. I won't belabor this because that is when you get impatient with me. I don't want to risk that. I guess from what you are saying, the judgment seat is not as literal an event for LDS Christians as it is for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. That may be a rather unknown distinction that no one really has made, or cares about. I guess you are saying that since Christ already knows your heart, your relationship to the church, and to Him that there is no need for a formal process on the judgment day as I have always thought it to be. It never has come to my mind that my Mennoniteness (I just made up a word) would ever be in Christ's mind at judgment day as a factor in His decision-making. If I think about it, I would have to say I don't think that a church affiliation matters to Him at all. Salvation, sanctification, glorification, and exaltation are each things where the various churches provide teaching, but all the actual work is done between the individual and Christ via the Holy Spirit. At least that is my understanding. Yes, I know it isn't yours.

I have never asked any one on this board if they have ever heard of non-members teaching lessons, praying for the company (not 100% sure what that means), or speaking in sacrament meetings. You might as well add singing, driving missionaries around, and sweeping the carpets - but maybe those would be ok with you?

Well, now you can't say you haven't heard of that anymore. Now you have! And obviously our stake president, as well as a general authority emeritus approve because they all were members of our ward and have witnessed all of it, including all of the above, plus my wife and I helping mop the cultural hall, clean the bathrooms, and vacuum the chapel.  I sat exactly behind the general authority for four years until he passed away. Now we sit with his wife.

I will also add that our former bishop who now lives in Mesa is and was one of the Godliest men I have ever met. He had a very special wisdom that I have rarely seen - and not because he let me or my wife speak in sacrament. Oh, and our new bishop has already asked me to close meetings with prayer as well. So that makes two now - same ward-different bishops. The new bishop is moving away however with his family. Now we will soon have a third in the five years we have been there. Maybe he will have quite different opinions? Who knows? I will let you know! Take care.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. I won't belabor this because that is when you get impatient with me. I don't want to risk that. I guess from what you are saying, the judgment seat is not as literal an event for LDS Christians as it is for Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. That may be a rather unknown distinction that no one really has made, or cares about. I guess you are saying that since Christ already knows your heart, your relationship to the church, and to Him that there is no need for a formal process on the judgment day as I have always thought it to be. It never has come to my mind that my Mennoniteness (I just made up a word) would ever be in Christ's mind at judgment day as a factor in His decision-making. If I think about it, I would have to say I don't think that a church affiliation matters to Him at all. Salvation, sanctification, glorification, and exaltation are each things where the various churches provide teaching, but all the actual work is done between the individual and Christ via the Holy Spirit. At least that is my understanding. Yes, I know it isn't yours.

I have never asked any one on this board if they have ever heard of non-members teaching lessons, praying for the company (not 100% sure what that means), or speaking in sacrament meetings. You might as well add singing, driving missionaries around, and sweeping the carpets - but maybe those would be ok with you?

Well, now you can't say you haven't heard of that anymore. Now you have! And obviously our stake president, as well as a general authority emeritus approve because they all were members of our ward and have witnessed all of it, including all of the above, plus my wife and I helping mop the cultural hall, clean the bathrooms, and vacuum the chapel.  I sat exactly behind the general authority for four years until he passed away. Now we sit with his wife.

I will also add that our former bishop who now lives in Mesa is and was one of the Godliest men I have ever met. He had a very special wisdom that I have rarely seen - and not because he let me or my wife speak in sacrament. Oh, and our new bishop has already asked me to close meetings with prayer as well. So that makes two now - same ward-different bishops. The new bishop is moving away however with his family. Now we will soon have a third in the five years we have been there. Maybe he will have quite different opinions? Who knows? I will let you know! Take care.

I apologize if I was offensive 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Scott, I was lazy and distracted last night. Assuming the worse…what does that get you?  Certainly not the truth. 

I’m surprised this surprises you about Scott. Scott assumes the worst about everyone who pushes back on his view points as far as I can tell. 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thank you for this. Three brief sentences with so much meat and truth packed into them. Well done!

Ditto!

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I apologize if I was offensive 

You weren't offensive at all. Not in the slightest. When I continue to ask questions after you feel you have answered me, that historically has irritated you. I simply didn't want to irritate you. I value your dialogue too much. Thanks.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

You weren't offensive at all. Not in the slightest. When I continue to ask questions after you feel you have answered me, that historically hasirritated you. I simply didn't want to irritate you. I value your dialogue too much. Thanks.

I'M NOT IRRITATED!!!!  WHY WOULD THAT IRRITATE ME????

 

🤪👍

Thanks!

 

 

[longview]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m surprised this surprises you about Scott. Scott assumes the worst about everyone who pushes back on his view points as far as I can tell. 

You have gone way overboard.  This is puerile slander.

[bluebell]

Interestingly, our 5th Sunday combined meeting yesterday included watching some videos from a bishopric training session that was done with Elder Christofferson and the Utah Area Presidency (is that what they are called now?).

The first one we watched was a talk given by Elder Vai SikaHema, who talked about being a disciple of Christ.  In that talk he never alluded to baptism being necessary to being considered a disciple, and even made the point that children can be disciples long before they are baptized.

He did however state that being a disciple of Christ is much more than just being a follower of Christ.  And I agree with Scott in that, if baptism is available, and if we believe that Christ has revealed the need to be baptized to us, then we can't claim to be His disciple and not obey the truth we believe we have been given.

Discipleship implies a desire and recurring attempts to be obedient to Christ's will.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m surprised this surprises you about Scott. Scott assumes the worst about everyone who pushes back on his view points as far as I can tell. 

That’s not true. 
 

For example one of my favorite posters on the board is Miserere Nobis, with whom I disagree not infrequently (politically more often than theologically, though he is one of our resident Catholics). 
 

Another for whom I have considerable respect though I sometimes disagree with her is Juliann. 
 

By the way, I agree with longview about your post. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not true. 
 

For example one of my favorite posters on the board is Miserere Nobis, with whom I disagree not infrequently (politically more often than theologically, though he is one of our resident Catholics). 
 

Another for whom I have considerable respect though I sometimes disagree with her is Juliann. 
 

By the way, I agree with longview about your post. 

If you don’t want others to make bad assumptions about you, maybe you should be more careful about the assumptions you make about others.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 1/28/2022 at 5:45 PM, Rain said:

Is it possible that is only one of the reasons?  My daughter is devout, but chose civil marriage and then sealing because 1. they wanted certain  people close to them be able to be at the wedding 2. to have a small sealing when making covenants.

Yes- it is possible. But she was very clear when stating why she wasn't getting married in the temple. It was all about the mask mandate. She didn't mention family being able to attend as even a secondary reason, even though many more close family members will be able to attend. She is an ardent anti-maskist.

[smac97]

On 1/29/2022 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

What do you all think are the non-negotiables for Christ at the final judgment, or if you believe in multiple judgments, at whichever judgment determines the interviewee's final destiny?

"I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."  D&C 137:9.

On 1/29/2022 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

1. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the faithful LDS deceased person who has had all the "right" ordinances by the right authority and remained faithful?

I don't know the particulars of the "according to their works" and "the desire of their hearts," but I have often thought of this statement attributed to Pres. McKay.

In June of 1965, a group of brethren in the Physical Facilities Department of the Church was doing some work outside the Hotel Utah apartment of President David O. McKay. As President McKay stopped to explain to them the importance of the work in which they were engaged, he paused and gave them some advice about their responsibilities as priesthood holders.  I think his comments can be easily applied to pretty much anyone, regardless of whether they formally hold the priesthood:

Quote

Let me assure you, Brethren, that someday you will have a personal priesthood interview with the Savior, Himself. If you are interested, I will tell you the order in which He will ask you to account for your earthly responsibilities.

First, He will request an accountability report about your relationship with your wife. Have you actively been engaged in making her happy and ensuring that her needs have been met as an individual?

Second, He will want an accountability report about each of your children individually. He will not attempt to have this for simply a family stewardship but will request information about your relationship to each and every child.

Third, He will want to know what you personally have done with the talents you were given in the pre-existence.

Fourth, He will want a summary of your activity in your Church assignments. He will not be necessarily interested in what assignments you have had, for in his eyes the home teacher and a mission president are probably equals, but He will request a summary of how you have been of service to your fellowmen in your Church assignments.

Fifth, He will have no interest in how you earned your living, but if you were honest in all your dealings.

Sixth, He will ask for an accountability on what you have done to contribute in a positive manner to your community, state, country and the world.

[From Notes of Fred A. Baker, Managing Director, Department of Physical Facilities]  

[Source: http://tinyurl.com/jnzv9no]

Seems legit.

On 1/29/2022 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

2. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the deceased person who lived from 200-160 BCE in northern Benin in west Africa, who never heard of Christ?

I believe such a person will be judged based on the light and knowledge he had, as well as decisions he made as contemplated in D&C 137 and elsewhere.

I previously wrote this (a paraphrase from something I wrote many years ago) :

Quote

1. Christ is the only means of salvation. (John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.")

2. Failure to accept Christ leads to damnation. (Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.")

3. The majority of the human race is not Christian.

4. The majority of the human race throughout history has not been Christian.

5. The majority of the human race throughout histroy has not had the opportunity to hear about and accept the Gospel of Christ.

6. The majority of the human race will be damned, even those whose individual circumstances made it impossible for them to hear about or accept the Gospel.

7. It is wrong to damn someone to hell for eternity for not accepting something they never had the chance to accept in the first place.

A 15th-century Chinese peasant, for example, would have no access to Christ's Gospel. Zero. None. The Bible hadn't been translated into Chinese (and he was probably illiterate, anyway). There were no Christian missionaries in China at the time. Assuming that such a person was "really interested in knowing what God wants," how would he have sought and found the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

I posed the foregoing matters to various participants on a message board years ago.  One of the singular responses I received was this: "I feel badly for all these peasants but that fact of the matter is they like the rest of us aren't good."

I found that response illuminating.  It really brought to mind the profundity of D&C 137 and the other doctrines restored through Joseph Smith that clarify what will happen to 15th-century Chinese peasants, Beninese from 200-160 BCE, and all of the other billions of our brothers and sisters who have not had a full and fair opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

On 1/29/2022 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

3. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the deceased Navidad who lived in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as a faithful servant of Christ in another Christian denomination and did not respond favorably to the LDS missionary in the spirit world? Or what if he did respond favorably there after living his mortal life in another faith?

I believe you will be given grace beyond measure.

Candidly, I'm not worried about folks like you, Navidad.  

On 1/29/2022 at 1:28 PM, Navidad said:

4. What will be the criteria and questions asked of the deceased formerly faithful member of the LDS church who converted to another faith or who simply remained faith-agnostic after her departure from the LDS church?

5. What will be the criteria and questions asked of the faithless person who lived in the twenty-first century who investigated and rejected the LDS church? 

I think the criteria will be tailored to the individual.

Thanks,

-Smac

[James 1 5]

On 1/29/2022 at 12:28 PM, Navidad said:

What do you all think are the non-negotiables for Christ at the final judgment, or if you believe in multiple judgments, at whichever judgment determines the interviewee's final destiny? The question assumes that the decision will be to live forever with Christ and the Father for eternity, or for eternity absent from them, whether you think that is heaven and hell, or one of the five or six (I am not sure what how to label perdition) or so levels of LDS eternity? Let me provide several scenarios:

1. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the faithful LDS deceased person who has had all the "right" ordinances by the right authority and remained faithful?

2. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the deceased person who lived from 200-160 BCE in northern Benin in west Africa, who never heard of Christ?

3. What will be His criteria and questions asked of the deceased Navidad who lived in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries as a faithful servant of Christ in another Christian denomination and did not respond favorably to the LDS missionary in the spirit world? Or what if he did respond favorably there after living his mortal life in another faith?

4. What will be the criteria and questions asked of the deceased formerly faithful member of the LDS church who converted to another faith or who simply remained faith-agnostic after her departure from the LDS church?

5. What will be the criteria and questions asked of the faithless person who lived in the twenty-first century who investigated and rejected the LDS church? 

There are many permutations of what the actual situation will be of the  dead person standing at the judgment seat. But, that is enough. My wife and I had a long chat with our new bishop two nights ago. It was fascinating. That conversation and this thread has me asking the questions. Thanks in advance for any answers you might provide.

Non-negotiables?  I don't think there will be any negotiable term(s) affecting how Christ will judge us. 

His questions?  Why would you think Christ would need to ask us any questions at all?   I believe Christ will not need to ask us any questions to know what kind of person we are.  

His criteria for judging us will be us vs him.  Are we or are we not the same kind of being and the same kind of person?  Are we good or are we evil? What kind of person do you believe you are?  He already knows and when he judges you he will tell you.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, James 1 5 said:

Non-negotiables?  I don't think there will be any negotiable term(s) affecting how Christ will judge us. 

His questions?  Why would you think Christ would need to ask us any questions at all?   I believe Christ will not need to ask us any questions to know what kind of person we are.  

His criteria for judging us will be us vs him.  Are we or are we not the same kind of being and the same kind of person?  Are we good or are we evil? What kind of person do you believe you are?  He already knows and when he judges you he will tell you.

The Bible indicates that we will all give an account of ourselves. I know of no better way to give an account than to answer questions. I agree that Christ will know all about us; I think He will be more interested in how we account for ourselves. You don't believe He will have any criteria for deciding which of the three level of heavens that you believe in, wherein you will dwell for eternity? Do you believe you already know all the criteria? So the judgment seat will have no suspense? Do  you believe it will be a literal event? Or is it metaphorical? Thanks

[James 1 5]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The Bible indicates that we will all give an account of ourselves. I know of no better way to give an account than to answer questions. I agree that Christ will know all about us; I think He will be more interested in how we account for ourselves.

I believe we give an account of ourselves by showing the kind of person we are.  Not only with our words, but with our entire lives.  I believe each of us will be like an open book to Christ.  He will not need to ask us any questions.  He will see us as we are.

 

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You don't believe He will have any criteria for deciding which of the three level of heavens that you believe in, wherein you will dwell for eternity? Do you believe you already know all the criteria? So the judgment seat will have no suspense? Do  you believe it will be a literal event? Or is it metaphorical? Thanks

He knows. All. Now.  And he will send each of us to where he knows is an appropriate place.  All we can do is to try to prepare ourselves for where he will send us.  We will continue to be however we are, however we have become.  Likely how we will be forever.

[rpn]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well one would presumably have to have a testimony of Christ?  Or are you suggesting you can follow Christ without believing in him or his atonement?

Sure you can follow Him wihtout having a testimony.   Probably not forever as that mustard seed who surely grow as you labored with Him.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:11 PM, rongo said:

That's what I mean. I think it's very presumptuous and premature to decide to get married civilly instead of sealed (in the U.S.) because the nominal temple policy is masking. Especially without talking to a member of the temple presidency and asking if the couple will have to wear one at their live sealing. I'll bet the answer in all but the most hard-core temples is "no" (I know that @Scott Lloyd has said that Draper asks and insists on it, but Jordan River didn't say anything, either. And would Draper insist on the bride and groom wearing them at the altar for the ceremony, and then allowing removal for a kiss? I doubt it).  

We've never been asked to wear one when we've gone (nobody says anything when we walk in or anywhere else, and there have been others not wearing them, too). There has never been any tension or conflict, and we would have worn one if directly asked to. But what we've found through this whole thing with stores, restaurants, etc. is that despite the posted signs, we haven't actually been asked/reminded to wear one. The signs are posted to make certain people feel better, but few people really want to be mask police. The same thing has been true in wards and temples in our experience. 

 

On 1/28/2022 at 7:35 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps now would be a good time to review the First Presidency direction: 
 

On September 22, 2021, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent this letter to Church leaders around the world. The letter is also available in French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish and Russian.

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

We are grateful that in recent months, some level of ordinance work has resumed in every temple. Our desire is to keep temples open.

As cases of COVID-19 increase in many areas, we want to do everything possible to allow temples to remain open. Therefore, effective immediately, all temple patrons and workers are asked to wear face masks at all times while in the temple. These safety protocols are temporary, based on COVID-19 conditions, and will be rescinded as soon as circumstances permit.

Our urging Church members to be vaccinated and to protect themselves and others from the spread of disease has precedent. Prior First Presidencies shared similar messages in 1900 about smallpox and in 1957 regarding polio. Please do all you can to protect yourself and others so the work of the Lord on both sides of the veil can move forward.

Sincerely yours,

Russell M. Nelson
Dallin H. Oaks
Henry B. Eyring

So today in the (Draper) temple I spoke during lunch with one of the assistant shift coordinators. He mentioned having very recently been to the Jordan River Temple. Recalling Rongo’s statement here, I told him I’d heard that Jordan River was not as insistent on masks as we are. He contradicted that, saying mask wearing is expected in the temple, and that it was announced in the chapel that masks are to be worn in all areas of the temple (consistent with First Presidency direction). 
 

I might have a chance to corroborate this sometime soon, when I go to Jordan River for our ward temple night (Jordan River has a larger capacity and can more easily accommodate our ward temple night). If this is inaccurate, I’ll report back here. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So today in the (Draper) temple I spoke during lunch with one of the assistant shift coordinators. He mentioned having very recently been to the Jordan River Temple. Recalling Rongo’s statement here, I told him I’d heard that Jordan River was not as insistent on masks as we are. He contradicted that, saying mask wearing is expected in the temple, and that it was announced in the chapel that masks are to be worn in all areas of the temple (consistent with First Presidency direction). 
 

I might have a chance to corroborate this sometime soon, when I go to Jordan River for our ward temple night (Jordan River has a larger capacity and can more easily accommodate our ward temple night). If this is inaccurate, I’ll report back here. 

We attended the Jordan River temple before the more direct FP letter (December, I think?), but it was still under the first letter (which also stated that masks were required). It was my niece's own endowment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some retrenching after the 2nd letter. Still, we were pleasantly surprised to see almost no one wearing a mask even at that time. If the temple makes it a point if emphasis (like you have said about Draper), then mask wearing will be near 100%. 

In my experience, almost nobody will say anything. Not at the desk, not in the locker room, not in the chapel, not in the endowment room, not in the celestial room. I wouldn't be surprised if Utah is more assiduous about it. My understanding is that most Utah units still stream church. There is a wide range of "roulette" around North America, and Utah appears to be on the far end of the "mitigation strategies." 

When do you think "phase 3" will end, Scott? How is traffic at the Draper temple? We had a worker in the Gilbert temple plead with people from the pulpit last Sunday to come back to the temple. He said it's a ghost town, with only a trickle off people. 

I think continuing to act like it's the peak of Delta is definitely having an impact on temple attendance. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

We attended the Jordan River temple before the more direct FP letter (December, I think?), but it was still under the first letter (which also stated that masks were required). It was my niece's own endowment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some retrenching after the 2nd letter. Still, we were pleasantly surprised to see almost no one wearing a mask even at that time. If the temple makes it a point if emphasis (like you have said about Draper), then mask wearing will be near 100%. 

In my experience, almost nobody will say anything. Not at the desk, not in the locker room, not in the chapel, not in the endowment room, not in the celestial room. I wouldn't be surprised if Utah is more assiduous about it. My understanding is that most Utah units still stream church. There is a wide range of "roulette" around North America, and Utah appears to be on the far end of the "mitigation strategies." 

When do you think "phase 3" will end, Scott? How is traffic at the Draper temple? We had a worker in the Gilbert temple plead with people from the pulpit last Sunday to come back to the temple. He said it's a ghost town, with only a trickle off people. 

I think continuing to act like it's the peak of Delta is definitely having an impact on temple attendance. 

Initiatory seemed a bit busier than usual today, but the endowment session I helped officiate had only three men and six women today. Bear in mind that with the pandemic resurgence (delta, omicron) our session limit has been cut back again to 15 patrons. And advance, online appointments are now required for everybody. Even walk-ins are assisted in making an appointment and may or may not be asked to come back at a later date. 
 

But from four straight weeks in December of exclusively working the recommend desk, I can tell you that nobody gets in without a mask — not unless he is extremely obstinate, and even then, he’s apt to have a visit with a member of the temple presidency. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

We attended the Jordan River temple before the more direct FP letter (December, I think?), but it was still under the first letter (which also stated that masks were required). It was my niece's own endowment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some retrenching after the 2nd letter. Still, we were pleasantly surprised to see almost no one wearing a mask even at that time. If the temple makes it a point if emphasis (like you have said about Draper), then mask wearing will be near 100%. 

In my experience, almost nobody will say anything. Not at the desk, not in the locker room, not in the chapel, not in the endowment room, not in the celestial room. I wouldn't be surprised if Utah is more assiduous about it. My understanding is that most Utah units still stream church. There is a wide range of "roulette" around North America, and Utah appears to be on the far end of the "mitigation strategies." 

When do you think "phase 3" will end, Scott? How is traffic at the Draper temple? We had a worker in the Gilbert temple plead with people from the pulpit last Sunday to come back to the temple. He said it's a ghost town, with only a trickle off people. 

I think continuing to act like it's the peak of Delta is definitely having an impact on temple attendance. 

Pleasantly surprised no one wearing masks, are you serious? How sad if you were. My sister in law is an avid temple goer and has again caught covid. We are vacationing next week with my husband's brothers and their wives and now this sister in law and her husband won't be going with us. She doesn't work outside the home and we wondered if she got it at the temple. Plus they're all planned a visit to the temple in the state we're going to. I know there's such close contact in the temple, that people not wearing them, is insane.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, rongo said:

We attended the Jordan River temple before the more direct FP letter (December, I think?), but it was still under the first letter (which also stated that masks were required). It was my niece's own endowment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there were some retrenching after the 2nd letter. Still, we were pleasantly surprised to see almost no one wearing a mask even at that time. If the temple makes it a point if emphasis (like you have said about Draper), then mask wearing will be near 100%. 

In my experience, almost nobody will say anything. Not at the desk, not in the locker room, not in the chapel, not in the endowment room, not in the celestial room. I wouldn't be surprised if Utah is more assiduous about it. My understanding is that most Utah units still stream church. There is a wide range of "roulette" around North America, and Utah appears to be on the far end of the "mitigation strategies." 

When do you think "phase 3" will end, Scott? How is traffic at the Draper temple? We had a worker in the Gilbert temple plead with people from the pulpit last Sunday to come back to the temple. He said it's a ghost town, with only a trickle off people. 

I think continuing to act like it's the peak of Delta is definitely having an impact on temple attendance. 

I would guess that a lot of what is impacting temple attendance is the reservation system.  The last time that I tried to go I went all the way to 6 months out and there were no openings when I was available (which, since I don't work outside of the home, is kind of often).  You can't get in to do baptisms at the two temples that I'm between at all either.  Maybe on a random tuesday at 5 in the morning but that's it.  They've been pushing temple attendance in our temple district as well and it's really annoying because I'd go more often if I could.

I think that people are reserving slots (as many as they are allowed) and then not always showing up.  I know they've had a huge problem with that at the temple where my parents serve. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Pleasantly surprised no one wearing masks, are you serious? How sad if you were. My sister in law is an avid temple goer and has again caught covid. We are vacationing next week with my husband's brothers and their wives and now this sister in law and her husband won't be going with us. She doesn't work outside the home and we wondered if she got it at the temple. Plus they're all planned a visit to the temple in the state we're going to. I know there's such close contact in the temple, that people not wearing them, is insane.

I hope your SIL gets better quickly.  That would be heartbreaking to miss a trip getting sick again.  Just so you are aware, the temple has changed a lot of their presentation so that there is very very little close contact.