Not necessarily. However, the rest of that poster’s posting was “the proof of the pudding.”
False. You will notice that the Australian Capital Territory is included in Canberra Stake. That information is current as of 2001.
Or perhaps you’re confusing the change of name of the mission area with abandonment. And the same site just cited gives 121 new converts per mission in Australia (there are six missions) per year. That strikes me as a fair increase.
Why would you be frustrated by that?
Talk about ignorance! For one thing, the missionaries don’t “barely know their Bible.” They know the Bible, along with the other Standard Works of the Church. For another, they are taught very much about the culture and the language (for areas that are not English-speaking) where they will be sent. Here is a description of the training regimen. Part of that description is (underlining and bolding mine):
Clearly you have never been in a recommend interview. You are wrong. There is a specific list of questions a dozen or fewer. (I forget because I get to visiting and talking about the kids and my worries and responsibilites at home and church and end up being the one to bring up other topics outside the interview questions.
You are not asked if you masturbate or participate in oral sex or who you last had sex with.
One of them does ask if you are faithful to your spouse. Not an unreasonable expectation in my opinion.
I meant an electrical technician or a pest control technician that separate from his employment, is temple worthy and has a current temple recommend. Sorry I wasn’t clear. :o
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**Not necessarily. However, the rest of that poster’s posting was “the proof of the pudding.”
Proof of what pudding? That I am bigoted against the LDS church? Having been baptized in the church at the age of 8, served a two year mission at the age of 19, been through the temple numerous times, and watched my parents temple marriage end in divorce, I think I’m certainly qualified to speak on the subject without being accused of bigotry.
I find it interesting that the new LDS temples are tending towards the less grandiose. Here in Boston, there has recently been much news coverage of the new bishop choosing not to occupy the tradition residence and instead live in an ordinary rectory along with other priests.
One Catholic official who commented pointed out that the Irish Catholics had built the lavish cathedrals and residences at a time when Catholics were considered ‘strange’ and somewhat outcasts. As obvious display of their member’s wealth, it was a way of saying they ‘had arrived’ and should be taken seriously. And that now, with Catholicism being pretty much ‘main stream’ in American, the impulse towards such defensive displays was fading.
I wonder if the same psychology is at play in the declining size of new temples.
Also…I wonder if, say 100 years ago, there was a similar obsessive interest in Catholic ‘weirdnesses’? Were Catholic’s then repeated asked about their rites and rituals and what priests did or didn’t wear, and why they coudn’t marry, and on and on? Is that just a standard behavior as a religion slowly evolves in status from cult to mainstream, with various stages in between?
I suspect not, because I’ve never seen any similar questioning of pagans or buddhists or moslems about day to day trivialities.
Er. Not meaning to say those are new religions, just that they are minority ones that are only lately becoming more common in America.
There are deviants in every segment of population, including religion. Yes, the LDS church has been sued, rightfully so, in my opinion where children were taken advantage of and abused.
Where member such as these are found, they are (in my experience) removed from office and lose their membership in the church.
Furthermore, young girls temple interviews take place in a group setting and there are parents and youth leaders other than a bishop present. This is not a new practice, it has been in place since I was in the youth program 20 years ago. Typically the Bishop reminds the youth (ages 12-18, boys and girls) of the standards and expectations set forth in the For the Sthrength of Youth pamphlet. The pamphelt can be found online in PDF format here: For Strength of Youth It covers such topics at Agency and Accountability (Your right to make your own choices and how your choices good and bad, have consequences.), Gratitude, Education, Family, Friends, modesty in Dress and Appearance, choosing appropriate Entertainment and Music, Language (Simply put, an admonition to refrain from profanity, including profaining the Lords name.), Dating, Sexual Purity (Yes, we believe sex outside of marriage is a sin.) Next up Repentance to help us sort things out with the Lord when we fall short of our standards. Also Honesty, Sabbath Day Observance, Tithes and Offerings, Physical Health, Service to others, and it concludes with sections titled Go Forward with Faith, The Living Christ, and The Family a Proclamation to the World.
Note that these are standards; and just like within any other organization the individuals who participate do so to varying degrees according to their faith and of course their parents wishes. (As far as some parents in all walks of society can and do impose their standards and beliefs on their children.) You will note that the very first topic is address is Agency which is our “lingo”, if you will, for Free Agency, Free will or the Right to Choose.
My point here is that ambushed is forming his opinions and basing is vitriol on information from people who if they have any acutal experiences with the church obviously had experiences outside the LDS ideal. [A]Ambushed** is getting his information about the intricasies of “Fords” from a “Toyota” dealer that once test drove a “Ford”, that is less than perfect.
Finally, it is not the (imperfect) people within the Church that makes its message of value to the world, it’s the message of the love of God for all His children. (All the people on the earth.)
StarvingButStrong as the Church membership grew beyond the United States and around the world, it became necessary for temples to be taken closer to the people rather than to have people travel such long distances to get to a temple to take advantage of the ordinances and covenants available in them. There are stories of families who sold their homes and possesions in order to travel to the nearest temple, weeks away from their homes, so that they could participate in these sacred ordinances. Making temples smaller, makes it possible for there to be more of them so they can be more accessible to members so all who are worthy and want the blessings of the ordinance can have access.
There is an article by David E. Sorensen, titled “Small Temples—Large Blessings,” in the Ensign (a church publication for the public, member or not) that can be found at this site by typing, “Small Temples-Large Blessings” in the search engine, if you are interested in learing more about temples, why we make them smaller now, and how they are different in purpose and function than meetinghouses.
Others in the thread have called meeting houses chapels, the meetinghouses have chapels, but are not only chapels. The have other rooms as well as the chapel, including offices, class rooms, storage, and usually a small kitchen, a “cultural hall” (think gym with retractable basketball goals and a stage or portable stage) where youth and family activities such as dances, pot luck dinners, preparedness fairs, holiday gatherings and receptions can be held. Some meetinghouses have baptismal fonts as well. Many meetinghouses are for more than one congregation and meeting times are staggered to more fully utilize the building.
Temples are more beautiful, meetinghouses are more functional.
Abby, I dare not suggest you are lying, here, but I will state, emphatically, that when I was 13 and being interviewed by the stake president for temple worthiness so that I could perform baptisms for the dead, I was asked if I masturbate.
I did not understand the term (I was very naieve, and very protectected from sexuality by my parents) and the poor Stake President, a tad embarassed, stumbled through telling me that he couldn’t tell me what it was, and that I needed to ask my parents. At the time I didn’t masturbate, but by the fact that I had no idea what he was talking about, the Stake President correctly intuited that I did not, and allowed me to go on the temple trip with my peers.
When I was 16 and was becoming a Priest, the Bishop asked me in the interview if I masturbated. At this point in my life I did, but, again being one who was raised to NEVER discuss sexuality with anyone, Bishop or no, I told him I did not. I then went home and tried FURIOUSLY to keep from doing it for a while, so that I would be honest in my answer. I failed, and carried a lot of guilt for a lot of years at being such a sick perverted person, and one so weak.
You very may well have never been asked this question. I wouldn’t at all be surprised to find out that many bishops and stake presidents go easier on women in the assumption that women aren’t as likely to masturbate. But they darn sure asked me. Two separate men on two separate occasions.
And honestly, any single men with callings for the church that require worthiness either have zero sex drive, remarkable self control, or lied in theier interview.
This is just my experience,
Steve
P.S. Reminds me of a joke my Best Friend told me when he came back from his mission. He said The Stake President asked one of the group leaders if “Elder Johnson is still having problems with masturbation.” The Mission Group Leader replies “No sir! HE’s getting quite good at it.”
This is General Questions. Your posts (and most of my response to it) are not questions and answers. If you want to start this up in an appropriate forum, feel free. I might show up. Let’s keep this on track, if possible.
I’ve been present at my son and his youth groups interviews for a group recommend to attend the temple to participate in baptisms by proxy for the dead on multiple occasions and never heard the youth asked such specific questions.
I do recall being asked as a youth about sodomy. Like your example with masturbation, I did not know what it was. The Bishop rightly discerned that I wasn’t participating.
The only time I was asked specific questions with regards to my sexuality was when the interview was for my own ordinances. The questions are worded in such a manner as to be as inoffensive as possible and neither the interviewer or the interviewee derived any “thrill”. The questions are on a card, and if I recall correctly are to be read from the card to prevent such misunderstandings. There might be two questions that have to do with sexuality, the majority of them (10 to 12 I think) are about such things as fidelity to your spouse, do you abuse or neglect your children, do you have a testimony Jesus Christ is the Savior. Are you or are you not following this or that teaching?
Truly I cannot fathom why people want to think it is a lurid process. It’s very matter of fact and it’s not about prying into your sexuality, its about discerning if you are keeping the commandments the way you covenanted with God to when you were baptized.
AHHH, A detail I forgot to include. I was NOT involved in one of the group interviews, this was a one-on-one interview with the Stake President because I had decided I wanted to go on the temple trip at the last minute, and had missed the group interview earlier. This being the case, the Stake President, AS I REMEMBER, informed me he would be doing a subset of the standard Temple Reccomend interview, eventhough I was too young, obviously, to hold a Reccomend.
I could imagine that these questions are NOT to be asked of a room full of kids, WITH THEIR PARENTS there because, for heaven’s sake, no mormon child on earth, in that situation, would say yes…And, honestly, in the situation, such a question would be beyond completely inappropriate.
I am 27 years old, and I am saying that at my last church interview, 11 years ago (plus or minus) I was asked specifically if I masturbated, as part of the “Sexual Chastity” section of the interview.
Agreed. I have never suggested that ANY of my interviews seemed “lurid” or inappropriate or anything, and if my post came off as such, I appologize. The questions were matter of fact, and if I had to guess, I would say the bishop/stake president were as uncomfortable having to ask me as I was having to answer.
Absolutely agreed. Never once did anything in anything I ever experienced in an interview with a member of the bishopric or stake presidency ever seem to be anything but completely above board.
But you said “They don’t ask you if you masturbate.” And I am telling you that two separate individuals, at two separate times, for two separate interviews (one of temple worthiness, one for priesthood progression) they most certainly did.
And, honestly, I would be VERY surprised to find out that what happened with me was extremely out of the ordinary.
You’re right I did say that. I will amend for the sake of ending the “he said, she said”.
I have been a member for over 30 years. Since my youth have participated in or been present for temple recommend interviews significantly more than twice. I do not recall being asked nor have I heard anyone ask the youth point blank if they masturbated. I have been asked questions with regards to sexual purity (prior to my marriage) and fidelity (since my marriage) in a general manner.
The questions with regards to sexual purity are not posed for the gratification of either party as implied by ambused and are only one a brief part of the discussion which in and of itself is usually quite short. (Maybe 20-30 minutes, depending on how much chit chat you do. I had one once that went over an hour because I spent a portion of time crying about a death in the family.) Quite frankly the hardest question to answer is the last one when you are asked something like, “Are you worthy?” The specific questions with regard to having a testimony of Jesus Christ, paying tithing, sexual purity, fidelity, fulfilling financial responsiblity to your children are easy compared to that one. (In my opinion of course.)
Two final points, first, an interview is necessary for participation in the very sacred ordinances and covenants that take place in the temple. However, If you don’t ask to be interviewed, then you aren’t. People self select for a temple recommend interview so no one is being forced to answer the questions. Second, while there are questions where your honest answer could delay or prohibit your being found worthy to obtain a recommend. (Infidelity, abuse of spouse or children, non payment of child support, and addiction for example. It’s widely believed that paying a full tithe is among them. That said I am personally aware of situations here people who did not pay a full tithe were granted recommends based on their family circumstances and testimony of the principle.) However, you are not required to have all “perfect” answers to receive a recommend for temple attendance. We believe perfection is a process and repentance is a part of that process.
Those wishing to debate the practices of the church or rant about them are directed to more appropriate forums. (That means you, ambushed). This thread is for facts only.
