Ask a Mormon, Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a quick note to say that it's nice to see such openess from the Mormon posters and (in the main) a good deal of courtesy from those asking questions, some quite searching.

Something I've noticed as well. It seems that the Mormons, from my view, are open and have a lot of courtesy and politeness when answering questions. Unlike other Christian groups which tend to be more closed and defensive (Catholics for instance) whenever they're asked a question. I don't know what it is or what they do, it seems they are more laid back.
 
I was born and raised in subruban Salt Lake City surrounded by wonderful Mormon families. My parents were Mormon (though not strict adherants, mostly for the community involvement) and encouraged us to go. All my friends there were much more devout than my family was, but we were never felt pressured by them if it made us uncomfortable.

In my experience Mormonism takes the approach that your faith is deeply personal. It has a time and a place, and outside of that it is simply something that people either accept or they don't. I have some problems with the way the LDS church owns so much of the property (both physical and otherwise) in and around Salt Lake City, but more on philisophical grounds, than on practical problems with their uses of that property.

In other words Mormons are laid back because, in my experience, they take their faith personally and expect you do the same with yours, so there's not much use arguing about it.
 
Mormons believe that only marriages in a Temple last for time and all eternity, so marrying a non-mormon would be "null" after you die, according to LDS tradition, unless there is a proxy sealing. Full blessings in the hereafter require temple marraiges, so marrying another member is really encouraged.

Can't they do "mixed" marriages in a temple?

It is . . . strongly encouraged, to have both a 3 day emergency supply and a year's supply of food. It is not a requirement per se.

Ooh. What is the rationale? Is it a strictly practical practice, or is there some kind of religious element to it? How well does the average Mormon stick to it? Do you? What sort of "doing it right" minimizes the necessary storage space? You're not particularly survivalists, okay, to what extent are you (general you)? Is it just the food, or is it fuel and water and guns and stuff?
 
Can't they do "mixed" marriages in a temple?

Since one has to be a member in good standing to be in the temple, no.

Besides, someone who isn't Mormon wouldn't believe that we have the authority from God to perform marriages that will last for eternity.

Ooh. What is the rationale? Is it a strictly practical practice, or is there some kind of religious element to it?

What do you mean? We believe that this is a commandment from God, and that no commandment is purely practical or temporal, but has a spiritual element to it; but we don't ritualize the practice as such.

How well does the average Mormon stick to it?

Well, it runs the spectrum, I would say the majority have some sort of emergency supplies, but most don't have a full year's worth.


Not a lot; we have the beginnings of a "72-hour kit" (that is, the basics for a minor emergency like a blizzard or whatever).

What sort of "doing it right" minimizes the necessary storage space?

Well, basically, figuring out how much storage space you have for starters, and focusing on what takes up the least amount of space.

You're not particularly survivalists, okay, to what extent are you (general you)?

I am pretty sure most people don't expect to actually use any of it, it is a matter of being prepared in case of emergency.

I recall hearing something about this coming in handy when Katrina hit; those who were actually in the worst hit areas couldn't use their emergency supplies, but those nearby already had a supply of non-perishable food that could be shipped in bulk, so it came in handy there.

Is it just the food, or is it fuel and water and guns and stuff?

Well, food, water, stuff like blankets and flashlights. Not guns, we don't expect to actually be fighting people.
 
Since one has to be a member in good standing to be in the temple, no.

is it policy to use this as incentive when trying to finally convert people who have been coquetting with it?

What do you mean? We believe that this is a commandment from God, and that no commandment is purely practical or temporal, but has a spiritual element to it; but we don't ritualize the practice as such.

i think the question was: did god have something specific in mind when making this rule or not and if yes what exactly?
 
is it policy to use this as incentive when trying to finally convert people who have been coquetting with it?

If by that you mean do we emphasize this to potential converts, then sure. We emphasize the aspects of our religion that would mean the most to them, in any case.

i think the question was: did god have something specific in mind when making this rule or not and if yes what exactly?

Of course, He did; exactly what, I can't say, but being prepared is always a good idea and the fact of the matter is that there are plenty of cases where this would be useful.
 
What happens if a non-Mormon sneaks/breaks in to a temple?

Not much, they would probably get caught and kicked out pretty quickly though, since it's not like it's full of hiding places or anything.

It is possible to enter the temple freely as a non-Mormon, under certain circumstances; at least, I have heard stories of paramedics who came in because someone had had a heart attack or something.
 
Can't they do "mixed" marriages in a temple?
Nope. Only Mormons in good standing are allowed in a Temple...which can make familes pretty upset (my Brother-in-law converted, but his parents couldn't see the actual temple ceremony, because they are Catholic)


Do you? What sort of "doing it right" minimizes the necessary storage space? You're not particularly survivalists, okay, to what extent are you (general you)? Is it just the food, or is it fuel and water and guns and stuff?

I don't have a full year...I have around a weeks supply of food, flashlights and some basic medical supplies. I would want to do this even if I wasn't Mormon, since I live in Hurricane Country and the power goes out here all the time.
 
How much divorce is there among Mormons? Compared to the general population?

I don't have exact figures (I am sure they can be found online, but I don't know where), but I have heard that among Mormons who haven't been married in the temple, they are about the same as the general population, but among those who have it is significantly lower. I do know that Utah has an above-average divorce rate, but among states west of the Mississippi it is one of the lowest.

Divorce does, of course, happen. My wife's parents, both life long members, divorced when she was six (and both later remarried).
 
It's why I asked about tithing & the supplies. If they're both commandments, I wondered which one took priority.

I've found online Mormons to be better than the Mormons who come to the door, but I think that's heavily biased by the quality of CFC Mormons.
 
It's why I asked about tithing & the supplies. If they're both commandments, I wondered which one took priority.

Tithing does, certainly.

I've found online Mormons to be better than the Mormons who come to the door, but I think that's heavily biased by the quality of CFC Mormons.

What do you mean by "better"?
 
Our food storage has come in handy for our family this year when money was low. We lived partially off our food storage, and it helped us get through some rough months. I've heard a lot of members say that they like to rotate their food storage--keeping track of when it would expire, and using it before it does, and buying new. That way you also get a feel for what you would do to actually cook it if the need arose, and you could realize if you need to add some things or quit buying some things that you really can't stomach.

My parents have gotten really food-storage-oriented the last few years. Instead of buying presents for the grandkids, they have sent us food storage, hand-cranked radio-flashlight devices, little games to keep the kids occupied to put in their 72-hour kits (backpacks, so you could take it with you if you had to move quickly). My wife's parents also put together 72-hour kits for all their grandkids a few years ago.

I get the sense from a lot of members that people expect that they will be grateful at some time in their lives that they are prepared. Last Sunday we had a discussion in Sunday School about how members in Haiti have been sharing their food storage (those who had it) with their neighbors, and whether we might want to plan to have more than our family would need.

Really, the thing that worries me most is fuel and water, since that is what I have the least of. If the power was out for 2 weeks (and it was in my area 2 years ago due to an ice storm, so it's not out of the question), I currently wouldn't have a way to heat my home and cook the food storage I have. These are the kinds of things a lot of members in my area talk about whenever there is a major disaster--it spurs us to look at how we're doing on preparedness.
 
Nope. Only Mormons in good standing are allowed in a Temple...which can make familes pretty upset (my Brother-in-law converted, but his parents couldn't see the actual temple ceremony, because they are Catholic)
Ok, this may be more like a general complaint than a question, and I apologise if I sound a bit unreasonable or condescending.

But this is a thing that really bothers me for some reason. It's the same with the "only Muslims may enter Mecca"-rule and similar things:

For some reason, when I hear I'm not allowed to go somewhere simply because I am not part of some large body of people, it makes me a bit upset!

I mean, I can understand not being allowed to enter peoples private houses, or sit in on a government meeting about foreign policy and such, but it feels wrong to be denied entrance to a public place where so many other people are allowed to go. With so many other people allowed in, it's not like I would be the worst person there (at least speak this-worldly) and create a problem...

Of course, a Mormon temple is a bit less public than a city like Mecca, but I would argue that it's still quite public (I'm assuming that "Mormons of good standing" is a sizable bunch).

And of course, if I was generally allowed in, I doubt there would be any reason for me to actually go there, but as soon as I am simply denied for not being Mormon (or Muslim, or whatever other branding one can set on people), it just gives me the desire to go there once, just in spite.

But are there any this-worldly reasoning for having a no non-Mormons may enter rule in the temple? I kinda doubt that downtown's brother-in-law's family would have made a commotion or destroyed anything. Is it only by divine command that this rule exists, and what is the reasoning behind it?
It is possible to enter the temple freely as a non-Mormon, under certain circumstances; at least, I have heard stories of paramedics who came in because someone had had a heart attack or something.
So it's not impossible...

I such a case then, do you have any ceremonial cleansing or anything - if that is required - of the temple after "outsiders" have been there?

And finally, what are your own takes on this rule? Is it needed? Good? Or merely a It-just-is/God-said-so,-so-we-follow-it-thing?
 
The modern rule on entering temples is less restrictive than it was in the Old Testament, when only men could enter, and even then it was only the priests, which were a small slice of the people of Israel.

I have felt similar indignation when I realized that some of the coolest rooms in the Salt Lake Temple were off-limits even to members in good standing. The Holy of Holies is usually only accessed by the Prophet and other top leaders of the church (similar to how the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon was the most restricted part of the temple). There is also a large assembly hall in the upper room of the temple; pictures of it are pretty amazing. My Dad got to go in once when he was a missionary, but these days it is usually only used by the top 2 tiers of the church leadership.

Honestly though, the only reason why I wanted to see those rooms (when I felt indignant about the restriction) was curiosity--not so that I could get closer to God or because I had a great reverence for their importance. Casual curiosity is considered a poor and inadequate reason for entrance into the temple, just as it was in ancient times.

I have had times in my life when my privilege (not right) of entering the temple was revoked, because I didn't meet the standards of worthiness required. I can tell you that I the period of not having a temple recommend (entrance pass) helped me to value the temple greater. When I made choices that violated the worthiness requirements, I wasn't thinking, "the temple is too important to me, why would I give that up just so I could do this?" At the end, I felt much more grateful for the privilege to enter.

I believe that we value that which we have to work to obtain. If something is given casually or without price or sacrifice, it becomes base or common for us. When the standards are higher, it becomes more sacred and holy for us. I've learned from my journey back to the temple that while I cannot make a temple unholy by entering it unworthy, I hurt my understanding of holiness when I enter it unworthily.

As far as ritual cleansing is concerned, I have never heard anything about that.
 
I find the Mormon Temple rule to be odd, especially when you consider when Jesus died on the Cross the divider in the Temple that separated the Holy of Holies was torn asunder. I mean no disrespect, but it seems your disallowing people into the Mormon Temple's Holy of Holies, heck, the Temple itself, is basically ignoring the Crucifixion of Jesus (His sacrifice) and the actions of God.

I'm really tired, so I hope the above makes sense.
 
Ok, this may be more like a general complaint than a question, and I apologise if I sound a bit unreasonable or condescending.

But this is a thing that really bothers me for some reason. It's the same with the "only Muslims may enter Mecca"-rule and similar things:

For some reason, when I hear I'm not allowed to go somewhere simply because I am not part of some large body of people, it makes me a bit upset!

Well, I . . . sort of understand why it bothers people, but not really. There would be nothing for me to do in Mecca besides satisfy my curiosity. We are not saying that non-Mormons are unrighteous people.

I mean, I can understand not being allowed to enter peoples private houses, or sit in on a government meeting about foreign policy and such, but it feels wrong to be denied entrance to a public place where so many other people are allowed to go. With so many other people allowed in, it's not like I would be the worst person there (at least speak this-worldly) and create a problem...

Do you feel that way about offices and other workplaces? Because a lot of what we are doing is "work" in a real sense, except it is a kind of work that has no meaning to non-Mormons pretty much by definition.

Of course, a Mormon temple is a bit less public than a city like Mecca, but I would argue that it's still quite public (I'm assuming that "Mormons of good standing" is a sizable bunch).

And of course, if I was generally allowed in, I doubt there would be any reason for me to actually go there, but as soon as I am simply denied for not being Mormon (or Muslim, or whatever other branding one can set on people), it just gives me the desire to go there once, just in spite.

Well, it's a building.

But are there any this-worldly reasoning for having a no non-Mormons may enter rule in the temple? I kinda doubt that downtown's brother-in-law's family would have made a commotion or destroyed anything. Is it only by divine command that this rule exists, and what is the reasoning behind it?

It is a commandment, yes. Again, since what happens there is meaningless in the eyes of non-Mormons and all, I don;t see the attraction.

I such a case then, do you have any ceremonial cleansing or anything - if that is required - of the temple after "outsiders" have been there?

To the best of my knowledge, no. Temples have been "rededicated", but that is usually only done after extensive renovations (which have been done on several older temple).

And finally, what are your own takes on this rule? Is it needed? Good? Or merely a It-just-is/God-said-so,-so-we-follow-it-thing?

Well, I would say it is needed - if not, there might be all sorts of people (not anyone here, but people who really dislike us) showing up just to make a scene. There have been people who show up at all sorts of Church-run events just to protest.

I find the Mormon Temple rule to be odd, especially when you consider when Jesus died on the Cross the divider in the Temple that separated the Holy of Holies was torn asunder. I mean no disrespect, but it seems your disallowing people into the Mormon Temple's Holy of Holies, heck, the Temple itself, is basically ignoring the Crucifixion of Jesus (His sacrifice) and the actions of God.

I'm really tired, so I hope the above makes sense.

I get what you are saying, but we have different views on the underlying theological meaning of the sundering of the Holy of Holies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom