Going to the temple for the first time in almost 2 years.

[smokymountainrain]

Here's the problem...He clearly wants to discuss my issues with the temple. I'm not terribly interested in doing this. The last time I got into a discussion over the temple with someone, she left the room crying (not my wife), so since that happened, I've decided to keep my concerns to myself and focus on areas of agreement with other members. Over the course of the discussion, the bishop said "so being sealed to your family isn't that important to you?" This comment wasn't as mean-spirited as it sounds, but it still reflects what his aim in this appointment will be. I'm not interested in getting into an argument over the temple. I don't want to prepare for an argument over the temple, since in order for this to be a fair evaluation, I would need to prepare an anti-list to counteract his pro-list--that's not a real useful exercise for me. I'm willing to return to the temple to evaluate again if this is an important spiritual experience for me to incorporate into my life. What more does he want?

I think you should go ahead and discuss your concerns with the Bishop. It won't make him cry and it might even be therapeutic for you. Make it clear from the beginning that you don't want to argue and that you are only discussing it with him because he asked you to.

I guess there is a part of me that thinks church leaders need to be aware of the concerns intelligent members of the church have about the restored gospel. It might even make them (your bishop) ponder some of those things and search for answers. As I mentioned, it might be therapeutic for you, but it could also be helpful for the bishop himself.

[Goatnapper'96]

FWIW, I don't think this is unusual at all that you see it as a chore. It is, after all, called temple "work". And as far as LDS culture goes - and your comment that if you don't enjoy it there must be something wrong, there is a reason church leaders are constantly telling members they need to go to the temple more often than they do. It's because church members feel like it's a chore and they don't enjoy it.

I guess my point is, that in my experience, you feel the way 90% of church members feel in regard to the temple. Those of use who enjoy it are in the minority. It's sad, and I wish all members could feel the way I do in the temple, but that just isn't reality. Yours - many others on this board - is the true reality.

The Church needs more leaders who make fewer goals. The goal should be for members to enjoy their worship, service and participation in the Kingdom. However, that is not a goal one can quantify so we end up with 55 year old amped up former CEOs, attorneys or real estate developers in area presidencies trying to go back to the blue planners on steroids, because that is the world they understand and know.

A month or so ago we had our Stake Conference and Elders Rasband and Riddelin (sp?) were present. Elder Rasband was exactly that. He is a former successful business executive and he is really comfortable motivating groups of people and setting goals. He is also very sincere and successful at it. The other fellow was a former physician, a very specified heart doctor, I think. IIRC, towards the end of his practice he only performed heart transplants. He only had one child, I think his wife contracted ovarian cancer after giving birth to their daughter. His wife had a career as a professional attorney as well. Not your typical LDS GA. I was really interested in their different approaches. Elder Rasband was the clear leader/motivator/CEO type. Take your really capable AP and give him 35 years of more experience and polishing. Wonderful man...but blessed are the boring for they shall inherit the same stuff they have now. Not that he is boring just that the LDS Culture churns out that model out of a factory in Holliday or Sandy or Alpine like it is nobody's business. Some use first initial and middle name - however. Elder Riddelin or Redlin (or whatever his name is) was a physician by trade and his healer art was much more individually applicated. He wasn't looking to fire up a crowd of MonaVie salesfolks to go out and gather in the anointed. His style was one on one and total focuss upon that subject. I think over time the Church needs more heart doctors to keep the amped up CEOs focus not on how many baptisms Southern Idaho churns out, but who from Southern Idaho was baptized. But the Church is an organization and organizations need strong leaders to be succesful.

[byu71]

Interesting timing of this thread for me. Too bad I just noticed it.

I've been feeling like I need to give the temple another try for a little while now. In the past, I can think of a few nice experiences I've had there, but nothing that would eclipse experiences I've had in nature, running, looking at the stars at night, reading, etc. and on the whole, I have found it long, boring, and contrary, or at least superfluous, to what I view as essential Christianity. However, my wife would like to go more and doesn't like going alone. I'm intrigued whenever I hear about people's spiritual experiences in the Celestial Room and would like to think that it's something more than just the good feelings that come from sitting in a nice clean quiet room dedicated to reflection. So I'm curious.

We recently moved to a new ward and just met with the Bishop last night. He asked me if my TR was current and I said no, and that it hadn't been for a few years. He asked me why and I honestly said that I have a few doctrinal concerns with it but that when it comes down to it, the temple just doesn't do it for me. He tried to get me to go into specifics on this but I didn't really feel like this was the time or place, so I resisted. In the end, I told I'm interested in attending again and so we set up an appointment for a TR interview.

Here's the problem...He clearly wants to discuss my issues with the temple. I'm not terribly interested in doing this. The last time I got into a discussion over the temple with someone, she left the room crying (not my wife), so since that happened, I've decided to keep my concerns to myself and focus on areas of agreement with other members. Over the course of the discussion, the bishop said "so being sealed to your family isn't that important to you?" This comment wasn't as mean-spirited as it sounds, but it still reflects what his aim in this appointment will be. I'm not interested in getting into an argument over the temple. I don't want to prepare for an argument over the temple, since in order for this to be a fair evaluation, I would need to prepare an anti-list to counteract his pro-list--that's not a real useful exercise for me. I'm willing to return to the temple to evaluate again if this is an important spiritual experience for me to incorporate into my life. What more does he want?

When I was going regular, I found it was just easier to lie if they asked how I felt about going to the Temple or anything except for the basic questions like chastity and word of wisdom. Since white lies to make someone feel good are acceptable, I would just try to make him think he had no worries with me.

Just tell him you think the sessions are a little long. He will suggest you try to get closer to the spirit. You say thanks, I will. Everything will be fine.

[RC Vikings]

Over the course of the discussion, the bishop said "so being sealed to your family isn't that important to you?"

Was he implying that the more you go the more you're sealed to them?

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not terribly interested in doing this. The last time I got into a discussion over the temple with someone, she left the room crying (not my wife)

i know you didn't mean this part to be funny, but I am laughing at this. sorry. It is a funny mental image.

[cowboy]

i know you didn't mean this part to be funny, but I am laughing at this. sorry. It is a funny mental image.

As a partial hijack, it reminds me of a story my SIL's husband tells about his brother. Said brother had just entered the CR through the veil when he walked up to a matron and said "So, are we INSIDE the Mormon temple now?" I don't know if the matron left crying, but she was certainly visibly upset.

[Fiyero]

I've been feeling like I need to give the temple another try for a little while now. In the past, I can think of a few nice experiences I've had there, but nothing that would eclipse experiences I've had in nature, running, looking at the stars at night, reading, etc. and on the whole, I have found it long, boring, and contrary, or at least superfluous, to what I view as essential Christianity.

I think I understand what you're getting at here, like a solitary oneness between you and God's creations. An ability to ponder in peace and quiet.

I don't like attending the temple in groups, and especially not on ward temple nights. I prefer to arrive early enough that I'll have ten minutes of peace and quiet in the chapel/waiting room, not feel obligated to participate in a something-something towards the end of the ceremony, and can quietly sit in the celestial room for as long as I'd like without people trying to whisper irrelevant conversations.

[Soccermom]

Good luck with your bishop, ER. I think you and I are similar in that much of the reason I go to the temple at all is for Aristides.

In thinking of this thread and in my quest for some inner peace I am also left wondering about the role of the Spirit in giving us peace and direction. Many people claim they feel the Spirit and receive all sorts of answers at the temple about how they are to proceed in life. A and I feel like we are at an impasse. We feel clueless and have no idea how to proceed.

Where do you turn when you are at an impasse? Does it feel like an impasse because of indecision? Or does life really have moments where we arrive at an impasse and have to patiently wait for the cul de sac we are trapped in to be changed to a through street?

[ERCougar]

Was he implying that the more you go the more you're sealed to them?

LOL...I have to admit that when he said that, my quick thought was to remind him that I've already been sealed. I just let it go.

[ERCougar]

Good luck with your bishop, ER. I think you and I are similar in that much of the reason I go to the temple at all is for Aristides.

Too bad we don't live in the same town. We could just send them to the temple. And no babysitters required!

[wuapinmon]

Here's the problem...He clearly wants to discuss my issues with the temple. I'm not terribly interested in doing this. The last time I got into a discussion over the temple with someone, she left the room crying (not my wife), so since that happened, I've decided to keep my concerns to myself and focus on areas of agreement with other members. Over the course of the discussion, the bishop said "so being sealed to your family isn't that important to you?" This comment wasn't as mean-spirited as it sounds, but it still reflects what his aim in this appointment will be. I'm not interested in getting into an argument over the temple. I don't want to prepare for an argument over the temple, since in order for this to be a fair evaluation, I would need to prepare an anti-list to counteract his pro-list--that's not a real useful exercise for me. I'm willing to return to the temple to evaluate again if this is an important spiritual experience for me to incorporate into my life. What more does he want?

Be warned. I had this conversation with my bishop. He said, "I'm worried we're losing you."

I was released shortly thereafter as EQ President.

I haven't had a calling since May.

[JohnnyLingo]

Be warned. I had this conversation with my bishop. He said, "I'm worried we're losing you."

I was released shortly thereafter as EQ President.

I haven't had a calling since May.

I'm filing that one away. Thanks.

[ERCougar]

I think you should go ahead and discuss your concerns with the Bishop. It won't make him cry and it might even be therapeutic for you. Make it clear from the beginning that you don't want to argue and that you are only discussing it with him because he asked you to.

I guess there is a part of me that thinks church leaders need to be aware of the concerns intelligent members of the church have about the restored gospel. It might even make them (your bishop) ponder some of those things and search for answers. As I mentioned, it might be therapeutic for you, but it could also be helpful for the bishop himself.

The problem is that I don't have any easily resolved concerns about the temple. I think he's picturing me bringing up a point, him offering the answer, and we all hug at the end in perfect agreement. I may be selling him short here, but outside of this board, this is how every discussion I've had regarding my concerns about the Church has gone. I really wonder if people think that I haven't given the least amount of thought to my concerns.

I don't have a huge problem with the Masonic elements of the temple. If I were a Freemason, I might, but I'm not, so I can let it go. To me, they act as a sort of prop (been using this word a lot lately...hmmm...) to prompt reflection and some sort of sacredness. They obviously held some power for the early believers and while I think much of that power is gone, or at least transformed, I can appreciate keeping them around for historical sake.

I have a problem with the treatment of women in the temple. However, not being a women, my "outrage" feels a little forced a little forced and hypothetical, so that's not what's keeping me out of the temple.

I have a huge problem with the concept of "worthiness", one that I think is extremely counterproductive to a proper relationship with Christ and others. But I'm doing what I need to and not doing what I shouldn't, so that's not really the issue either.

I don't really like the secrecy aspect, particularly with regards to people going through the temple for the first time. It's completely unfair to expect someone to make significant covenants with little or no preparation, and with the only out offered being to get up in front of the whole room, with many friends and family likely watching, and walk out. But this is done, so this doesn't really keep me from it either.

I think that the idea of proxy ordinances is a valiant attempt to answer one of the great questions of traditional Christianity, but that it really falls short. I just can't accept that a just God would make a righteous person wait until someone encounters their name on the internet before they can continue their eternal progression. I can accept that time is likely viewed very differently in the eternities so this isn't a huge obstacle either (the whole exercise does seem a little silly, but I'll move on...).

I'm not crazy about rituals, secret handshakes and passwords, or really, ordinances in general. This is a much bigger discussion--one I'm not crazy about entering into with the Bishop.

My real issue is that in the past, I've never gotten much spiritual satisfaction from the temple. Like I said in another thread, it may have been my stage of life, my relationship with my wife, my perspective at the time, etc, but with the sacrifice that it took to go, the payoff just wasn't worth it. It left me confused and empty, so I moved on and focused on other aspects that were more spiritually fulfilling. Now I'm thinking it's time to try again, and I'm willing to do that. That seems the ideal way to resolve my "concerns"--try it again. But if I come to the conclusion that the payoff isn't worth the sacrifice, then I'll go back to the activities that bring me close to God. One of my firm beliefs is that the Church is a means to an end, not the end itself ("Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath..."). If there are parts of it that aren't fulfilling the end for me, I need to discard them. I'm not sure that my Bishop is open to this conclusion.

[ERCougar]

Be warned. I had this conversation with my bishop. He said, "I'm worried we're losing you."

I was released shortly thereafter as EQ President.

I haven't had a calling since May.

That's exactly my fear. Not that I won't have a calling, although I do appreciate the blessings that come from a meaningful calling. What bugs me about the Church is this all-in or all-out aspect. There are too many people trying to force people out of the tent.

[smokymountainrain]

The problem is that I don't have any easily resolved concerns about the temple. I think he's picturing me bringing up a point, him offering the answer, and we all hug at the end in perfect agreement. I may be selling him short here, but outside of this board, this is how every discussion I've had regarding my concerns about the Church has gone. I really wonder if people think that I haven't given the least amount of thought to my concerns.

ER, in my saying you should express your concerns to the Bishop, I'm on the same page as you from the standpoint that I wouldn't expect him to be able to resolve them. I guess what I'm saying is that since he asked you, I think you should lay it all out there for him. See how he responds. If I were a Bishop, I would would want to hear honest concerns of the members. I would be an idiot to think I could resolve all of them, but I would, at the very least, want an understanding of those things.

I could be wrong, but I think Vandelay is a good example. He's a Bishop and it seems his eyes have been opened quite a bit since he started reading and participating in this forum. This is a good thing. I think these issues - these concerns of members - are issues Bishops should want to be aware of if they care about the people within their boundaries.