Two comments on this thread since Wayfarer bumped up the list:
1) With the recent events on MormonThink, does anyone rethink their views?
2) I just want to revisit MNG's completely awesome post:
mercyngrace wrote:This is the definition I use because I've jokingly responded dozens of different ways over the years:
- Well, I voted Republican last fall.
- Do my in-laws count? I'm convinced they are close friends with Satan.
- There was a large group of drunk rednecks cursing God and carrying on at our last family reunion but I pretended I didn't know them so I think I'm safe.
- I read Rough Stone Rolling but in fairness, I bought it at Deseret Book.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father." Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view." Luke: "A certain point of view?" Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."
I answered "NO" because I was told during my first Temple recommend interview that it was meant as groups/organizations/people who are actively trying to harm the church. And to "affiliate with them" meant that I supported them with either my time or money.
It never crossed my mind that the question could mean to associate with family members / friends / etc that are not living "gospel standards" would make someone unworthy to attend. I always imagined that the question meant "are you trying to sneak into the temple so you can record it or film it" basically.
I wouldn't hesitate to answer no even though I listen to Mormon stories podcasts, etc. To me everyone has faith struggles and doubts, and doubts also wouldn't preclude entrance.
Btw, I don't consider involvement with online people, apostasy, regardless of their views. Yall seem like good people to me.
In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can't help it. because I have to associate with them doesn't mean I support or affiliate with them.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can't help it. because I have to associate with them doesn't mean I support or affiliate with them.
My understanding was the same on both of these, but I assume in the last few years for some leaders the support of LGBT issues now comes into play.
DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
In life we associate with people who are opposed to the church and its teachings all the time, we can't help it. because I have to associate with them doesn't mean I support or affiliate with them.
My understanding was the same on both of these, but I assume in the last few years for some leaders the support of LGBT issues now comes into play.
I'm sure leadership roulette does come into the picture here - fortunately we are saved by the "no probing" clause. I used to be opposed to gay marriage. I live in a state where it has been legal for a few years. I have adopted a "live and let live" philosophy - if gays want to marry, fine, it's their lives and their choices. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about LGBT issues, but while I think it's up to churches to decide if they want to perform gay marriage or not, I don't support or affiliate with either side. Thus I can answer the question appropriately, as most of us probably can.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
I am trying to draw parallels with other doctrines/practices. So I do not drink and I am fine with the church holding this as a requirement for things like a temple recommend. But I am OK with others drinking and I find it politically stupid to try and stop it (the last time the US tried, it didn't really work at all - IMHO). The church does not seem to be pushing for the entire US and/or world to be 'dry' / adopt a prohibition stance. No members have been asked to contribute to pro-prohibition legislation.
So to take that same stand on same-sex-marriages, I am fine with the church saying they don't support it. But from a political perspective I think the church has a right not to perform SS marriages, but I don't think I should not be pushing it's perspective/standards on others or asking members to contribute to blocking SS marriage initiatives.
What isn't all that clear to me (or within the leadership of the church) what is considered not acceptable views/behaviors. Some local leadership view these different than others. Members don't know where the line is in their ward/stake.
DarkJedi wrote:In the old days when I first went to the temple (with penalties in the ceremony), I had asked about this question and was told it related to polygamous groups trying to get into the temple for plural marriages, etc. I have always seen it in that light.
That's how it was presented to me as well. The first time I was interviewed the person conducting the interview offered up a similar explanation without me prompting for one. I take it the interviewer thought the question was a strange one to ask or at a minimum they felt the question wasn't very clear. Either way their explanation of the question made it clear that they were steering me to answer "no" to the question.
That said, the experience was long ago and as we know the TR interview evolves. Not only do the questions change over time, but the intent of the question may also change. This question probably relates less and less to polygamy as time distances the church from the practice. Given the challenges today's church faces, I can see how leaders would interpret the question differently.
I kept a diary right after I was born. Day 1: Tired from the move. Day 2: Everyone thinks I'm an idiot.
— Steven Wright