By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog
The greatest Mormon blog in the universe.
The prophet counsels us to attend the temple often. What does this mean for you?
Show us how often you’re inclined to attend.
Do a second poll too. So, if “it’s been a while” why is that? Unworthy? Temple too far? Can’t be bothered? Too Levitical for your gruppie a*s?
The problem with that second poll is how personal it is. There are a zillion reasons why people might not attend the temple — I’m not sure that any of them are public business.
For me, I can say that I don’t attend more often because I forget, or get too busy, etc. But one of the real reasons is that it is the holiest place I can think of, and I just don’t feel worthy to be there. It is so far beyond me that I get overwhelmed.
I don’t attend often, for many reasons. I’m old that I started attending before the changes of the 1990s, and it was too weird for me. Also, I can’t really believe that God needs us to sit through the movie over and over again for sake of the folks who died before us– particularly given the repeats in the ordinances, as well as the inaccuracy in the research. I’d rather spend my time doing something for living folks. I’m eligible for a TR, but am not inspired by the temple experience in anyway.
I canâ€™t really believe that God needs us to sit through the movie over and over again for sake of the folks who died before us
I don’t think He does. I think the repetition is for our sake. And I find it fascinating.
It’s pretty hard to go with a pregnant wife I’ve found. It certainly was, in general, easier to go when I was single.
I love the temple. I especially love initiatories and sealings and would much rather do that than endowments. The difficult thing about such a topic is that it is so personal. It is the same reason they stopped swiping the recomends at the temple and sending reports to the wards and stakes.
Clark, now that we have kids, we rarely go to the temple together. In fact, probably less than 10% of our visits are together.
I got the distinct impression last month that a church-wide (or maybe U.S.-wide) directive was sent down from SLC to stake presidents urging high temple attendance for the month. Several people I have talked to in several states had special “programs” in the month of May implemented to encourage unusually high temple attendance.
In my stake, members were asked to, in a nutshell, use a vacation day at work, hire a babysitter and spend all of one Friday (the wording was actually “as much as possible”) in the temple doing session after session.
Another person I talked to said that the stake goal was for every member to do at least 10 sessions in the month of May
And so on, and so on.
Did anyone else experience this?
I don’t have a problem being encouraged to go to the temple. I need to be encouraged. But when my leaders start putting numbers into the equation, saying that I need to attend X number of times for X number of hours, I start to get seriously turned off. To the point now that I intentionally go to the temple on the Saturday morning instead of the monthly scheduled Saturday evening stake temple session.
Our temple (Los Angeles) has been closed for many, many months and Newport and Redlands don’t rent clothes. We’ve never gotten around to buying hubbie his own. So we haven’t been in forever.
The temple experience is one of my favorite elements of Church participation. I only get there every few months,largely because the temple I go to is 2.5 hours away.
J., how long ago did they used to swipe recs? I went through for the first time in ’94 and I don’t ever remember having seen them swiping them. I assume it was pre-94.
Costanza- IIRC, it was around ’84-86, somewhere in there. It didn’t last very long.
For me it’s been awhile mostly for reasons of logistics and inertia. For me to go after work, it works best for me to take the train up to Glenview and have my wife pick me up at that station. But it is something that has to be worked out in advance, and with my wife taking classes she’s not really anxious to go to the effort.
What would motivate me to go more would be friends and food. If I knew that some of my church friends were going to a particular session, and if we agreed to meet at the cafeteria or Wendy’s or something for a quick dinner before and at Baker’s Square for a slice of pie after, then I would go more regularly. It’s terrible, but I’m a Mormon and that’s my motivation.
The current reason I haven’t been for awhile is that I need to corral a SP member to give me my second interview; I’ve been carrying around a half-signed recommend in my wallet for a month and a half now, and it’s not that often that I see one of those guys and then think to bludgeon them into giving me an interview. This two-interview process is really awkward, but at least now they last for two years instead of one.
I wish I went more often. Our nearest temple is 45 minutes away with ideal traffic, more like an hour plus if traffic is normal, and two or more with bad traffic.
I admit to being very curious about why others either don’t get to the temple as often or don’t want to attend as often as they do/should.
They just started “swiping” recommends with a bar-code in our stake as a pilot program about a year ago.
I’d love to have seen how the results from the survey correlate with distance. I’m now two hours from both the Columbus and Detroit temples, yet I don’t attaen any more than I did when I was 4.5 hours from D.C., which was the nearest temple. Two babies in two years has a little to do with that though.
Yeah, Tim. There are “new” recommends being pilotted in some stakes, but if I understand correctly, they are swiping them to verify authenticity, not to record service.
Note attaen = attend. I’m a horrible typist.
I wish one could just “hang-out” at the temple. Chill out with some mates in a temple library, chatting about the Gospel. Right now it’s: get changed, keep quiet, sit quietly, stand, sit, don’t be the last to change clothes (nudge, nudge), sit, walk, stand, sit, get changed, be quiet, leave. We need some Nauvoo-style dances!!
See, Ronan, to me that would defeat one of the best things about the temple – the High Church, sacred and different quality. It feels good to have a place of such holiness where our social behaviors need to adapt, rather than vice versa.
I’m with Ronan I wish we could just hang out in there.
I’m gonna be honest, I have some issues with the temple (is it because I’m a single woman, I’m not sure) but I’ve had some remarkably peaceful and sweet moments there.
Also my interpretation of some of the answers to the temple questions is generally a lot looser than the bishop asking them. It gets complex then and sometimes I’ve gone without a recommend.
I heard that they stopped swiping recommends because the readers were just too unreliable and it wasn’t worth the maintenance cost.
I don’t go very often for two reasons
1)I’ve always had a visceral dislike for the temple. Temples make me claustrophobic, despite the fact that I don’t suffer from this malady anywhere else. The lack of natural light, natural fabrics, natural anything, in a ceremony that begins (and really ends) with God’s creation of and love for this world, just gives me the heebiejeebies. I think it wouldn’t bother me so much if it didn’t seem so un-Mormon–after all the central Mormon heresy is that God is embodied, that (as C.S. Lewis says in another context) God likes matter; he made it! We believe that *this* earth will be renewed and made Paradise, NOT that we’ll be transported to some polyester-covered, fluorescently-lit, shushed-whispering, blue-haired celestial bank lobby. I need skylights, at least, and windows that look out to trees.
2) All of my agonies about women’s role in the church and in the eternities are in stark relief in the temple: women have authority to perform parts of some ordinances, and yet there is no woman’s face or woman’s voice in the description of creation–the world apparently sprang fully-formed from Heavenly Father’s head. Again, the distinctive Mormon doctrine that I love is missing or distorted. (And don’t get me started on “hearken”)
It has been awhile since I have been to the temple. Mostly because I have either been pregnant or had a young baby at home. Before this happened I was going at least once a week sometimes two or three.
I happen to love the temple and the feeling of peace I get there. I love to go with my spouse when I can, but I no longer feel that I have to go with him. I can send him without me and I can go without him.
Our stake has had goals to attend the temple during a week in January. There is no specific amount of work that is requested to be done individually but there is a goal of how much is to be done by the stake. They get anyone that can do any ordinace work involved, this includes YM/YW. We are to do only work of individuals that have been gathered by memebers of the Stake. It has been truly successful and very rewarding.
I used to complain that the temple was too far, and with terrible traffic. Then they built a temple about 2 miles from my house, right next to my chapel. Now I’m looking for something else to complain about.
I agree with Ronan, I would like a place to hang out and discuss. I suppose that is what the celestial room is there for, only I know that we couldn’t have a general hubbub there.
With the age of temple workers doubling and tripling mine, I can see how it has turned into something akin to the library…shh!
I do picture the celestial kingdom as something more natural than the celestial room, a place where we could all be talking and discussing and laughing and thinking.
Ronan: “We need some Nauvoo-style dances!!”
Many of said dances were were made merry (and holy & spiritual I might add) by “the fruit of the vine”.
Steve Evans: “It feels good to have a place of such holiness where our social behaviors need to adapt, rather than vice versa.”
Yeah, because all other aspects of Mormonism are cases of social behaviors gone wild and rampant independence and individualism. “Our social behaviors need to adapt” more??? Does a Mormon meeting exist in the land where “Conform, conform conform!” is NOT a strongly implied and sometimes stifling constraint? I can think of only one: the Nursery!
Give me a spiritually exhuberant Black Revival Meeting over a stifling grey-suited Mormon Meeting any day. The early Saints got that. What do you think was happening during the pentacostal week at the Kirtland temple? What is speaking in tongues? You’ve got to let your body and mind loose before your tongue will be loosed.
Sort of like the bloggernacle, Nate J.?
I am spoiled because I live only 5 minutes from the temple and have an abundance of willing young women from the ward to babysit our three children. Even with all these advantages my wife and I only make it about once a month.
When we got our recommends renewed our Bishop asked us to write a goal for how often we wanted to attend on the back (inside folded part) of the recommend. I thought this was very non-pushy, but motivating.
I have had mixed experiences in the temple; a number of tired, dutiful experiences with the occasional “wow!” spiritual feast (often enough to keep me coming back). I haven’t yet determined how I duplicate more of the deeply rewarding times. Anybody have any suggestions for making the temple more spiritual high, than exhausting sigh?
I admit I don’t go anywhere near as often as I would like. The temples (the Wasatch Front ones) are 1.5 to 2 hours away, which isn’t bad, and I’m in civilization (i.e., the Wasatch Front) often enough that I could go. However, when I’m in civilization, it usually involves running a lot of errands, and going to the temple gets pushed out of priority quickly. I need to just make it a higher priority. Alas.
Wow, Kristine, thanks for sharing your comment. Those are some real issues.
a slice of pie after
A man after my own heart!
If you don’t enjoy the repetition of the ordinances, why not try being a temple worker?
Nice people, nice chats, some good laughs, and an opportunity to serve more than one person during a visit. You can choose how often you serve and on which shift. Take a group of the “mates” with you.
And, in an interesting irony, you can avoid the restrictions levied against mothers with younger children if you volunteer for positions that do not do ordinance work.
(I’m not sayin’ it makes sense, just that it is so.)
I just moved from Michigan to Logan, UT. Back east, it was about 12 hours total for a temple trip (driving, eating, etc). We didn’t go very often at all.
Now that the Logan Temple is minutes away, I’ve been going every Saturday. My wife and family are still in MI selling the house, so I’ve more time to myself and I often will do an endowment as well as another type of session. It has done wonders for me in many ways.
When we get settled in, we’re going to work in the Baptistry.
For me, I feel like I’ve been in the desert and just found an oasis with a swimming pool, so I’m spending as time there as possible.
I haven’t been to the temple to do an endowment since taking out my own, in 1977 (for reasons which might be obvious to some of you).
I did get a recommend in 1985 so I could go to two weddings, my two sisters, one married in Washington and one in Salt Lake.
But that’s it for my temple… history.
Pickles: “Give me a spiritually exhuberant Black Revival Meeting over a stifling grey-suited Mormon Meeting any day.”
Sure, Pickles, I agree with that. I think our everyday worship is dull. But the temple isn’t everyday worship, it is the sacrosanct, the holy of holies, and needs to be kept that way IMHO. If we blur the lines between temple worship and common worship we’ve diluted one of our finest experiences.
Needless to say, my favorite temple experience (and one of my most powerful, personal spiritual experiences) was touring the Kirtland Temple with an RLDS tourguide.
I know, it’s not the same, I just thought it might be worth posting.
I do not hold a recommend. While I live my life in accordance with the behavioral requirements for recommend holders, I no longer feel that I can answer the belief question respecting the authority of the Church leaders in the way I understand the question to be intended.
I hold the First Presidency and other Church leaders in very high esteem. I listen to their addresses in General Conference and otherwise. I read and think about their writings. I readily acknowledge that they are the only ones who hold the authority to administer the affairs of the LDS Church. However, I no longer accept that they are the exclusive and authoritative means by which God communicates to His children on earth.
While I suppose I could parse, lawyer-like, the questions of the recommend interview in a way that would allow me to answer them with the “right” responses, I don’t think I’d be doing so with integrity and candor to the process.
Bravo for that very candid post, Greenfrog.
(I wish I knew you.)
Maybe they could have Nauvoo-style dances in some of the wedding rooms, and setup a quiet library study to the side of the celestial room.
I have a love/hate relationship with the temple. To keep this short I will say I am moved by the justice and mercy of universal ordinances for all of mankind (without which what ordinance could have any claim on the eternities?); by a place of sanctity, peace and worship; by the fascinating parallels between ancient texts like “The Testamnet of Jesus Christ,” “Bartholomew” and “Second Jew” describing special seals and names, linen garments, standing foot to foot and arm resting on arm, prayers around altars, Mary washed and anoited before praying in a manner we would recognize, etc; by ritual whose sometimes boredom forces me to probe for deeper meanings and by men and women sharing priesthood powers here and later. The temple stands at the heart of our doctrine and as such is most dear to me. But, and I will speak a bit obtusely out of respect for the temple, I struggle with any suggestion God does not always welcome a dialogue with me face to face because I am a woman. There is a point in the ceremony when my blood pressure soars and I struggle to be receptive to the many blessings of temple attendance. And sometimes I am more up for that struggle than others so my attendance tends to go in waves.
I haven’t gone to the temple in over three years, and even when I did, it was for baptisms, because I am not endowed. I have a limited reccomend, but I don’t feel worthy to hold it, so I never go on YSA temple trips or ward temple trips, which are the only times one can do baptisms anyway.
I don’t forsee becoming endowed any time soon for a couple of reasons, the chief being that I simply don’t feel worthy. The secondary reason is that when I talked to my bishop about it a while back, he said that the rules had changed and there’s a desire that recieving one’s endowments accompany an event like a mission or marriage, and neither is in my near future.
Crystal #41, that sounds very odd to me. I guess it depends on your age.
This won’t distinguish me from probably hundreds of others, but you provided music at the home in Short Hills where my wife and I held our wedding reception 21 years ago in August. Do you remember the Lees?
Forgive the unsolicited spiritual advice, Crystal, but I note that you say that you don’t have a recommend because you feel unworthy, not that you are unworthy. Consider that the adversary might provoke feelings of unworthiness in worthy people to prevent them from receiving the blessings of the temple. You might ask yourself whether you feel unworthy because you are unworthy or for some other reason. If I were you, that’s what I would talk to my bishop about.
greenfrog (#37): Well said. Described me perfectly for a couple of years. Today, everything you said still applies except for a couple of “behaviorial requirements”. Of course today, some would seize upon those as reasons for my inability to answer the other, non-behavioral questions correctly.
For most Mormons, correct actions are more important than correct beliefs. On the apostate sliding scale, those who observe LDS behaviorial requirements but doubt the truth claims of the Church are held in higher esteem than doubters who don’t. In many Mormon eyes you are a sincere doubter, I am just a sinner.
Steve Evans #35: Actually, I love the “idea” of a temple… a quiet, holy place to get away from “the world”. Even in my most TBM days however it never quite lived up to the ideal. I wished then that it was less structured. I remember asking my parents if the movie was the same each time. “Why can’t they have a dozen different movies and ceremonies, each with a different eternal truth or perspective?” I asked.
I would have enjoyed private rooms to meditate and/or pray by myself, or with other small groups. Attempts to pray or meditate in the Celestial Room always felt like a pose.
All that said I get why some people like the place. One size doesn’t fit all, but it fits a lot of people.
Even despite these feelings, I sometimes wish I could go with my TBM wife to the temple to worship and meditate in my own way. I like the ceremony inherent in “going somewhere” to meditate. I confess that I sometimes daydream of the temple being a place in the millenium that flings its doors open to people of all faiths, and yes, sexuality. Sincere, humble faith/hope/belief/love for God and fellow man being the only requirement for entry.
Crystal, gst is a smart man – follow his advice.
And in the meantime, read this. I consider it to be one of the best talks ever given in GC.
Here is a taste:
Now, this is the truth. We humble people, we who feel ourselves sometimes so worthless, so good-for-nothing, we are not so worthless as we think. There is not one of us but what God’s love has been expended upon. There is not one of us that He has not cared for and caressed. There is not one of us that He has not desired to save and that He has not devised means to save. There is not one of us that He has not given His angels charge concerning. We may be insignificant and contemptible in our own eyes and in the eyes of others, but the truth remains that we are children of God and that He has actually given His angels â€¦ charge concerning us, and they watch over us and have us in their keeping.(Gospel Truths, comp. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, 1:2.)
“I no longer accept that they are the exclusive and authoritative means by which God communicates to His children on earth.”
In all sincerity, I am not sure I understand why this is inconsistent with the spirit of the temple recommend interview.
I think there is a question in the interview about sustaining the president of the Church as the only person on earth who “possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.” I do not see how the beliefs you state are inconsistent with this concept. I certainly have never thought that question required a belief that the Prophet was (or the Brethren were) authoritative (in the sense of infallible or even near infallible or having authority outside the Church structure) or that he was (or they were) the only means (or even primary means) by which God communicates to His children.
It seems to me that accepting that “they are the only ones who hold the authority to administer the affairs of the LDS Church” is an acceptance that the President and Brethren hold all priesthood keys.
I love the temple. Most especially, I love the rich symbolism I find there. I will admit that sometimes my eyelids get awfully heavy during the film portions, but even on the days I am sturggling to stay awake, I find something to remind me of why it is all so important. Plus, I love how I feel while in the celestial room.
While I suppose I could parse, lawyer-like, the questions of the recommend interview in a way that would allow me to answer them with the â€œrightâ€ responses, I donâ€™t think Iâ€™d be doing so with integrity and candor to the process.
I resent the implication that lawyers are more likely to twist the questions so they can get in unworthily. We only do that with home-teaching reports.
…I sometimes wish I could go with my TBM wife…
“TBM” is not an acronym I see here a lot, and where I have seen it, it usually has a pejorative connotation. Please tell me that that’s not what you mean here.
DavidH wrote: â€œI no longer accept that they are the exclusive and authoritative means by which God communicates to His children on earth.â€
I think there is a question in the interview about sustaining the president of the Church as the only person on earth who â€œpossesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys.â€
Good point. I erred in communicating my own personalized shorthand for things. As a part of my beliefs about the way God interacts with us here, I should also have included explanation of my belief that many outside the Church can, should, and do act in God’s name with authority equivalent to that of the leaders of the LDS Church. While, as I suggested, I can find a way to position that view consistent with the requisite response to the question, I think a fullsome explanation of my view is inconsistent with the idea that the authority of the LDS Church is unique.
I don’t want to derail BCC’s temple attendance thread by an exegesis of my own particular heresies. Perhaps there will come another thread where they will be more directly pertinent.
1) We don’t go to the temple often because I always have to be the one to initiate the trip (wife never brings it up) and either a sense of unworthiness, tiredness, or fear of traffic often intervenes (or all 3).
2) I also agree with those who dislike the forced hushiness of the temple. My two most cherished temple experiences both involved being unsupervised in the Celestial Room–once with my wife before our sealing, and once with my wife and a close male friend after an endowment session. It’s not like we screamed or performed rock music or cursed or were anything less than reverent in either situation. But we got to have intense, sacred discussion of the temple in each case, discussions that would otherwise presumably take place in the dressing rooms, since those are the only non-ordinance rooms where only endowed members are.
I know in the first case that the temple presidency insisted on giving us a few moments alone in the CR, but I’m not sure why we were alone in the second case–a shift change, maybe? But the second time, once the elderly temple worker showed and gave us that “keep your feet off the rug!” look, we hushed up and moved along.
As I’ve told my Primary kids, “When someone tells you to ‘be reverent,’ there’s a difference between what God expects and what mortals expect. God expects you to be respectful, gentle, patient, and to listen for the Spirit. Mortals, especially Primary teachers, want you to shut up and fold your arms up so you don’t cause problems.” I appreciate the IDEA of the first kind of reverence in the temple, but it too often feels like #2.
ï»¿According to what I have read, things that have bothered me have bothered others as well. Even so, the bothersome elements have been mingled with “special” moments.
. I dislike the feeling of “forced” holiness, rather than real.
. I dislike having to bow my head to agree my husband is my boss “in righteousness” (which was only changed to include the “righteousness” part relatively recently). I’m righteous
too…why shouldn’t he give me equal respect?
. I dislike greatly having to cover my head to pray (and believe this requirement came not from God, but due to men who misunderstood certain scriptures).
. A am bothered by the fact that candidates for a temple recommend are not given a copy of the questions they must answer “correctly” in order to get a recommend.
A couple of my most stinging experiences of male/priesthood chauvinism have been committed against me, personally, in the temple (where it is more offensive).
In contrast, I have–a couple of times–undergone significant (holy) experiences. Statistically, these may have been few because what
goes on in the temple IS unnecessarily dull and repetitive, and (presumably) done in vain (without effect on anyone in the other world).
Two t.r. qestions that are particularly bothersome to me are the “sustain” questions: (#2) “Do you sustain the President…” and, (#3) “Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the
local authorities of the Church”?
According to our Stake President (who was quoting “higher-up” sources) to “sustain” means to agree–and don’t publically
disagree–with all the doctrine taught by these men. Period.
Hence, ever time a member raises his or her hand to “sustain” an authority (local, or high), the member is agreeing to conform 100% to what is taught by these authorities.
How many members could, honestly, say they agree with every doctrine taught by the church, as taught by every church “authority”?
Don’t take it so seriously? Well, at least not until the next time you have to answer these questions, and have to choose
between your integrity, and giving the answer expected of you, or, when some church authority wants to deny you a recommend because you publically expressed your doubts about some doctrine or other, as taught by some authority or other.
Is being naive a good thing?
since when does sustain equal agree?
dictionary.com, quoting The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright Â© 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
1. To keep in existence; maintain.
2. To supply with necessities or nourishment; provide for.
3. To support from below; keep from falling or sinking; prop.
4. To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage.
5. To bear up under; withstand: can’t sustain the blistering heat.
6. To experience or suffer: sustained a fatal injury.
7. To affirm the validity of: The judge has sustained the prosecutor’s objection.
8. To prove or corroborate; confirm.
9. To keep up (a joke or assumed role, for example) competently.
I have only been going once a year because the travel is a long journey. Where I’m living now, there’s not even a temple in the same country.
I’ve not been to the temple for an endowment in years. I’d honestly rather read a good book, listen to good music, enjoy the outdoors, or visit the dentist. The temple has never spoken to my soul the way that reading, music and the outdoors can. And at least when I go to the dentist, I come away feeling as though I’ve gotten something from the experience. At the temple, all I get is questions & cognitive dissonance.
The more I read BCC, the more I realize that I’m not a liberal Mormon any longer. I like liberal Mormons, a la Levi Peterson’s recent post, but I’m less and less LDS. That fact becomes more clear when I consider the temple experience. It is not ‘me’, and it doesn’t appeal to me. Whatever sense of spirituality I may have, it finds little sustenance in Mormonism in general, and even less in the temple.
Please don’t turn this into a temple bashing thread. I’m simply taking a deep breath and letting those comments go.
Ben, sorry if you took my comments to be temple bashing. Maybe I misunderstood- the subject is a poll about the temple. My response was “It’s been a while”, and then I explained why. If that’s bashing, well, I’m sorry. The most common response was “It’s been a while”, and other replies (including someone named “Ben” in #14) asked about people’s rationale for their response. I didn’t mean to offend, I merely replied to an honest question with an honest response.
According to the unscientific poll, only 3 in 10 attend the temple monthly. I bet this has been close to the statistical average for the Church for many decades. Yes, the Stake may try focusing on raising averages, but they always come back to the resting state average.
To really change the attendance rates I think it requires greater “outside the box thinking” such as:
1) possible content change
2) shorten length of endowment
2) possible presentation change
3) updated teaching methodology (ie ..post 19th century Masonic era approach)
Why should we pretend that some of these future changes can’t still happen? The ceremony has gone through many different changes, iterations, revisions, etc that still convey eternal truths, despite changes in the ceremony itself.
FF, I bet we’re WAY above the statistical average for the Church, and I don’t believe that altering the endowment is an answer to raising attendance rates — or at least a desirable answer.
Maybe if we got the temple movie remade by Peter Jackson, with a few T-Rex’s fighting in the Garden…
Rel #19, 39, 51, etc.: I’m a late-20s single man and most often go to the temple (>1/month) with small groups of single friends, and girlfriends at certain times.
One of my favorite parts is being able to chat in the celestial room about the ordinances, trying to learn from other’s insights of the symbolism of the temple and the meaning of the scriptures.
Try it – take a friend, spouse, etc. and have a good chat about the gospel in the celestial room. The only time I’ve been hurried out is when I’ve been on the last session of the day, but I’ve spent over an hour on several occasions.
Good idea, Flying Fish. Here are some more ideas to increase faithfulness among the members. I bet lowering the percentage of tithing would result in more full tithe payers. And reducing the requirements for getting a temple recommend would also result in a greater number of TR holders. I also say we make the definition of the WoW something that’s “between you and the Lord.” The number of WoW keepers would skyrocket.
October 9, 2014 By Cynthia L. 58 Comments
The Living Christ
Enter your email address to follow BCC and receive new posts by email.
Return to top of page
Blog at WordPress.com. · The Minimum Theme.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 9,515 other followers