How much is too much? How much is not enough? How often do you go to the temple? Do you think you should go more often? Why or why not?
[poll id=”252″]
Discuss.
Agency, Church Policy, Freedom, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture
Agency, Church Policy, Freedom, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture
How much is too much? How much is not enough? How often do you go to the temple? Do you think you should go more often? Why or why not?
[poll id=”252″]
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Is this question directed at Latter-day Saints who live in the shadow of a temple? Or those who live far away? One might reasonably suppose the answer to the question will be different based on the geography.
Rather than opining how often other people should go to the temple, the better question would be for each Saint to wonder how often he or she should go to the temple.
Depends on the person. If they’re getting a lot out of it, go frequently. If they’re not… find something else uplifting to do.
I live 6 hours from a Temple, Regina, and so it’s an overnight trip to go and you either get a billet or a hotel room, so it’s an expense. officially our ward goes every 3 months and I at least attend once a year but sometimes 2 or 3 depending on the ride/accomodation situation
Ideally, I would live close to the temple and be able to attend on a monthly basis. I have noticed a big difference in attendance frequency as my proximity changes. When the temple was less than 1 hour away from where I worked, I went most months. At double that, only a few times a year is what I now attend.
This has also changed historically; the Nauvoo Saints went for their own endowment but may not have ever returned to the temple in their lifetime depending on how long they lived in Utah. Within our own lives, there are also times and seasons for varying attendance: less as a nursing mother, more as an empty nester. My answer of “ideal” depends greatly on who’s asking.
I was glad not to be “first out the gate on this one”. I picked “weekly” b/c a biweekly button wasn’t available. I agree with the “depends” answer…some temple patrons are old enough to buy them. I’d say the factors are proximity, means, callings, work schedule. That’s one of the blessings of retirement that I’m looking forward to, render regular service in the House of the Lord. I have to say that I enjoy CLEANING it even more than endowments or ordinance work.
Not want to go back after receiving one’s own endowments? Ever hear of paying it forward? It’s like watching Return of the Jedi and not wanting to let out a loud cheer when Palpatine gets thrown down the reactor shaft. If that’s your reaction to receiving your endowment, you’d didn’t get it.
Last time my wife and I moved house one of the considerations was to be close to the Brisbane temple.
We now go fortnightly to the Thursday at 5pm session. It takes 15 minutes to get home.
Before Brisbane was opened we drove to Sydney 900k and 12 hours and went twice a year.
I live in northern utah with many temples close so I go weekly, my husband has a more difficult work schedule so he goes with me every other week. I imagine if we lived somewhere else we wouldn’t go as often but we are luckily to have do many close to us.
I haven’t been back since Spencer Palmer was playing the minister. If I was supposed to see the dramatic equivalent of “Palpatine gets thrown down the reactor shaft”, I must have missed the boat.
Disregarding issues of distance, I would say as often as a person feels that they need to go and can get something out of it.
There are many, many forms of service in this world and I just don’t think the temple is for everyone. Even if you ignore the many doctrinal issues some people have with the temple, some of us just don’t enjoy sitting and waiting for 2+ hours.
I haven’t been back since Spencer Palmer was playing the minister.
Roger, you made me smile with that comment. I am old enough to remember that and knew of Spencer Palmer as one of my parents had known him. He had many talents, but was not an academy award quality thespian. The dramatic presentation has improved since that time. But a more Palpatine-esque villain would definitely increase the focus!
There was a minister in the temple endowment?
Yes Mandy.
The minister in the temple ceeremony was dressed in a black robe with a clerical collar and was in the employ of the devil. Every time I see a minister today I have this tape in mind mind playing: the minister is slinking around with old Lucifer himself. This in spite of not seeing it for over 2 decades and in spite of the observable fact that every minister I personally know has as much integrity as any LDS Bishop. Thank you Bro. Brigham for that load of crap.
They took the minister out in 1991 at the same time they eliminated the parts where we rehearsed our own homicide/suicide if we ever broke our covenants. This disturbed my mother so severely that she refused to attend the temple from the time of her marriage in 1953 until her dementia first started kicking in 40 years later, with two exceptions; when her sons were married. Apparently, Jodi Arias was merely fulfilling this old covenant, judging from what she did after shooting and stabbing her TR holding sex buddy, even though she was a recent and dubious convert who never went through the temple. The association is undeniable, at least to anyone who went to the temple as often as I did before 1991.
Perhaps I went too often, eh? Or maybe just missed my medication this morning. Sorry.
Mike – responding to your commentary about prior versions of the Endowment and applicability to the murderess Jodi Arias:
I was about 21 (in 1980) when I first went to the temple just prior to my mission. I remember the aspects that you described but though being considerably less sophisticated I had little difficulty seeing it as symbolic. Ergo, I didn’t fear being the victim of some freaky “Danite” execution should I disregard my covenants and “blab” everything. Nor did I feel that I or any member had any such authority or calling. Later, in a Q&A session with one A. Theodore Tuttle, GA and then-president of the Provo Temple, confirmed that indeed these things were symbolic and for teaching purposes.
As for Ms Arias, I’m dubious that enforcement of temple covenants was on her mind. Then again, the woman is such an obvious liar that who can say what impelled her to the viciousnesss she displayed. It will come out in the trial penalty phase, I guess. To my best knowledge Ms Arias never attended the temple, and her victim was too young (b. 1978?) to have seen other than the 1990 version.
I do remember the minister with the clerical collar but no robe. (It seemed to be a pretty good reference to the Church of the Devil, ala Elder McConkie, who certainly wasn’t the first to make that kind of connection.) As for the removal of penalties, well I think we can thank (?) Ed Decker and his movie The Godmakers for their removal. Like Douglas, the hand gestures didn’t make much sense to me (I thought it was a really weird pantomime, and it didn’t register for my young 19 year old self.)
Mike, Jodi Arias shot Travis Alexander in the head and stabbed him 27 times. Tying this to the temple requires a LOT of imagination. I’m not seeing it at all, and your connection is dubious at best.
MH, don’t give the charlatan Decker any more (did)credit. There had long been disclosures by former LDS long before the “GodMakers” and it caused no difficulty. Once I asked a temple worker, post-1990, why the changes. His explanation was that different cultures interpret symbols differently, and the prior versions had a far more negative impact in Asian cultures. To keep it consistent, all languages were thus revised.
Douglas, I don’t buy the Asian argument at all. The penalties in the endowment pre 1991 were absolutely masonic in origin. I’m no fan of Ed Decker, but his publishing of this absolutely did lead the church to re-evaluate the endowment, and they removed these obviously masonic parts. Removing the penalties was a strong improvement, as Mikes mother would have agreed.