Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
I should have placed bets on you making this statement. I would have won a fortune.

Did not anyone wonder that? He said he was a member. Call me crazy.

Who are you to tell him to get worthy. Weren't you whining at other posters for making assumptions without knowing every detail of a situation?

He threw this out here for all public to comment on, said he was a member, if he's a member, there's nothing stopping him from going to his Daughters wedding, only himself. It's a logical/legit question, at least for the logical.

Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
I should have placed bets on you making this statement. I would have won a fortune.

Did not anyone wonder that? He said he was a member. Call me crazy.

Who are you to tell him to get worthy. Weren't you whining at other posters for making assumptions without knowing every detail of a situation?

He threw this out here for all public to comment on, said he was a member, if he's a member, there's nothing stopping him from going to his Daughters wedding, it's a logical/legit question, at least for the logical.

Keep that in mind next time you whine about people bringing up things you have said. You have thrown things out for all here to see, then you get huffy if anyone brings it up. Like I said, you will get what give out. If you don't like it, do something to change.

I notice girlfromsouth asked basically the same question I did, but you said nothing to her kitkat...errr Kitkat II errr Betz.

Dubbs wrote:
I notice girlfromsouth asked basically the same question I did, but you said nothing to her kitkat...errr KitkatII errr Betz.
Basically the same? What drug are you on? If you really believe you asked "basically" the same questions, then you have a bigger problem with your grammar than we suspected.

By the way, it's Girl Raised in the South. Not girlfromsouth. Maybe the problem is in your reading comprehension, eh?

Since you won't get it, I best explain. Girl Raised in the South was very respectful, and put her information/questions out in a thoughtful manner. She wasn't "nasty" about it. You, on the other hand, throw out insults. That's why you get the responses you do. Deal with it.

KitKat wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
KitKat wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
KitKat wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Not an easy thing to go through, and I have always, even when I was active LDS, thought the stance odd. In fact, I find it very perplexing for a Church that likes to extol itself as pro-family, etc. The Church gives conditional use recommends (not sure if that is the name, but it is the purpose) to youth in order to perform baptisms for the dead, otherwise they could not get in. So, it could be done regarding weddings, which makes one wonder if something else is the real motive, like....

money, aka tithing. Yes, money talks.

That said, I think your children have a say as well. They could simply do a civil wedding and do the Temple thing in a year, and I believe if more did that, the Church's stance might change. The Church frowns on that, but tough. Let 'em frown. So, go ahead and blame the Church if it makes you feel better, but realize that your kids are complicit in it.
Money talks? I'm not so sure. When I married in the temple, my parents weren't tithe payers due to a temporary financial difficulty. They were given a conditional temple recommend, good for my wedding only. I don't know if that's still done or what, but in my case, money DIDN'T talk.
One question. Were your folks endowed, i.e. had they been through the Temple before? Sounds like the answer is yes, and if they had a sympathetic Bishop and SP, then I can see that happening and I think it is great. Other Bishop's and SP's might not be so lenient.

The ladies situation is completely different than that.
Yes, my parents were already endowed. We did have a wonderful, understanding Bishop and SP. I do wish conditional recommends could/would be given out more. If the person is in pretty good standing, what can it hurt to let the parents in for one day?

Yes, this other ladies situation is different. However, HER OWN children made the choice to marry in the temple. Yelling at us isn't going to change that.

KitKat. . .I know you're a member of the church, and I believe you're an active member from your posts. However, you know we can't be in "pretty good standing" to enter the temple and participate in temple ceremonies. We are either keeping our covenants, or we're not, We're either paying a full tithe, or we're not, etc., etc. A sympathetic bishop or stake president who says "OK, just this once" about participating in a sacred temple ordinance is doing that member a disservice. Members shouldn't put their priesthood leaders in that position, and priesthood leaders shouldn't encourage members to cheat a little on their worthiness. Life perfection is not a requirement for temple attendance, but at least a very, very conscious and consistent effort in keeping commandments and covenants is.
I understand what you're saying. By being in "pretty good standing" I'm not sure I meant what you think I did. My parents were active in the church, but as much as I can remember of it, they weren't paying tithe at the time due to a financial difficulty they were having. And that was the ONLY convenant they were not keeping. My parents did not ask for this conditional recommend. I was prepared to be married without them there, with their full support. A couple weeks before, the bishop himself approached my parents at church and if they were planning to get a recommend. And it went from there. I know they can't hand these kind of recommends out to anyone who asks. But I do think they are good in special circumstances.

For what it's worth, right after this happened, my parents did start paying tithe again and got their regular recommend back. It may have been the little "push" they needed. But whatever it was, I'm grateful to that Bishop. Some thirty years later, he and I are still very close. The good that came from him giving my parents that recommend has lasted to this day (there's more, which I'm not putting in here). That's why I say it can be good in some circumstances.

Thanks, KitKat. People in the church today are so different compared to our parents. By that, I mean they think a little transgression or full-on sin shouldn't keep them out of the temple. The personal worthiness questions for a temple recommend have changed over the years to help weed out those who willingly and with intention break their covenants. I just want LifeRocks to understand temple worthiness is a constant lifestyle choice, and he can't be worthy for just a moment. (I'm glad for your parents.)

Girlfromsouth...."I am asking you, why didn't you do whatever you needed to do in good faith to be able to participate in your child's temple sealing? "

Yea, I guess for the IQ you have that would be hard to see. rolleyes