What Do You All Think About This?

[Amillia]

I recently found out : Unless a young man or woman are going on a mission or are getting married, they are not allowed to take their endowments until they are in their late twenties.

In a speach given by Von J. Featherstone, it was stated that those who would weather the spiritual storm of the last days would be those who were temple attending Latter-day saints. He stated that many parents would wish their children could enter the temples and be granted the blessings that are offered there.

Where is the youth to get their strength in those very vulnerable years if they are not able to get their endowments unless they go on a mission or are getting married. Not every young man and woman will be given the chance to get married and if one has ill health, a mission isn't an option either.

Isn't this cutting off of the nose to spite the face? What valid reason could the church have for weakening the youth, the future generation of the faith? Who on this board would deny their children the available spiritual strength to endure these last?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:07 AM

What valid reason could the church have for weakening the youth, the future generation of the faith? Who on this board would deny their children the available spiritual strength to endure these last?

Well gosh Amillia, I reject your premise, that unless the Church does things the way YOU want them to, they are weakening the youth. The Church places great emphasis on strenghting the youth. In this case it seems that they are trying to "motivate" more youth to go on missions or get married. Maybe if people were more motivated, they would be more successful.

[Amillia]

Well gosh Amillia, I reject your premise, that unless the Church does things the way YOU want them to, they are weakening the youth.

I can't see where I stated that it was MY way. For as far back as the church history goes, receiving the temple ordinances was only premised upon righteousness and personal worthiness. Now, they use it as coersion to encourage young men to go on missions?

co·erce ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-ûrs)

tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es

To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.

To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.

To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

What happened to Joseph Smith's "Teach the people correct principles and allow them to govern themselves."?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ameli@ Sep 5 2004, 10:06 AM

It is coersion. Evil. Your own evil spirit poured out in your post

Oh that's dandy Amelia. If an organization sets criteria for benefits, then it is guilty of coersion and what? Oh yeah, EVIL. So if your employer actually requires you to work in order to pay you, it is guilty of coersion and what? Oh yeah, EVIL.

And if I disagree with you I am what? Oh yeah, EVIL.

Pleasure doing business with you Amelia.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 5 2004, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 5 2004, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ameli@ Sep 5 2004, 10:06 AM

It is coersion. Evil. Your own evil spirit poured out in your post

Oh that's dandy Amelia. If an organization sets criteria for benefits, then it is guilty of coersion and what? Oh yeah, EVIL. So if your employer actually requires you to work in order to pay you, it is guilty of coersion and what? Oh yeah, EVIL.

And if I disagree with you I am what? Oh yeah, EVIL.

Pleasure doing business with you Amelia.

Oh thats dandy and well gosh~ ROT!

Your example of work for pay isn't valid. Christ only asks for righteousness and worthiness through obedience. So did the church up until President Hinckley.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 12:51 PM

Oh thats dandy and well gosh~ ROT!

Your example of work for pay isn't valid. Christ only asks for righteousness and worthiness through obedience. So did the church up until President Hinckley.

Obviously Amelia you value temple work, else you would not have complain so vociferiously about what you view as more restrictive criteria placed upon it. You claim that up until President Hinckley, the Church did not place these additional burdens upon admission to the temple. (never mind you inconsistency in that on one hand you claim that worthiness and righteousness and obedience are required but now balk that they are required in a way that doesn't tickle your fancy).

...so, praytell, how is it that you got your current reccomend without having to meet any of the criteria for it that the rest of the Church has to meet?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow@Sep 5 2004, 05:04 PM

Obviously Amelia you value temple work, else you would not have complain so vociferiously about what you view as more restrictive criteria placed upon it. You claim that up until President Hinckley, the Church did not place these additional burdens upon admission to the temple. (never mind you inconsistency in that on one hand you claim that worthiness and righteousness and obedience are required but now balk that they are required in a way that doesn't tickle your fancy).

...so, praytell, how is it that you got your current reccomend without having to meet any of the criteria for it that the rest of the Church has to meet?

I do value Temple work. I value the strength that attending the temple gives those who attend diligently.

Pray tell: What inconsistencies? A woman friend of mine was endowed at age 17 because she requested it. That was a mere 25 years ago. I knew of several young women who were given recommends before they were old enough to go on a mission during President Kimball's and President Benson time as President.

I must say it is definitely inconsistent for the church to okay 19 year old men to gain a temple recommend to go on missions, when a good percentage of them end up coming home early for one thing or another, while still denying their counterparts (young women and young men) who do not not on missions but do much good in many other capacities in the church, the blessings of temple ordinances.

On one hand you have a 19 1/2 year old holding a valid TR with all privileges extended to him,(though he only served 3 months of his mission) and his young 19 1/2 neighbor who happens to be the EQP in his local college ward who is denied a TR and all attending privileges.

It is definitely inconsistent and not a question about worthiness at all, but a question of who has the power to envoke their agenda on the people using the TR as bait to fulfill their agenda.

[Snow]

You're inconsistency, Amelia is that on one hand you say righteousness and worthiness and obedience are required but then you inconsistently say that righteouness and worthiness and obedience to the idea that you should go on a mission in order to take out endowments as a teen or in one's early twenties is "EVIL."

Which is it going to be Amelia, obedient or not obedient?

Apparently you have no problem with coersion and obedience if it agrees with your own personal idea of what's good. Or are you only paying lip service to obedience? Should someone get a recommend if they don't pay their tithing? If they smoke and drink? If they are sexual promiscuous? If they don't believe in Christ? Are those tokens of obedience superflourous?

I don't know what address by Elder Featherstone you are talking about so I am responding to your opinion of it, not to his address itself. If it induces more people to go on a mission as a result - so much the better.

[Nina]

Is this age restriction a new requirement? I had a friend who is 23 get her Temple recommend just last summer and you stated that people have to be in their late twenties.

I also would comment that a temple recommend is a very serious undertaking. Once you have it and attend the temple any indiscretions or failures to meet the requirements will have consequences. I know that you HAVE to have your temple recommend to go on a mission and likewise to get sealed so there is a real reason to get one at that time at that age

I am not sure I would want my son, if he is choosing not to obey a commandment and go on a mission, to get his TR regardless. I mean by choosing NOT to go on a mission he is choosing NOT to obey Heavenly Father's command of young men and I guess I would think ... should he then be rewarded with further light and knowledge when he clearly doesn't understand what he has?

If, in fact, he(or she) does not go on a mission because he(or she) is ill or has a disability that does not allow him(or her) to go but is otherwise worthy I really truly think that if he(or she) went to his bishop or stake authorities they would take that into consideration.

I know of a young man who is, I think, twenty and he just (last month) recently got his endowment out and received the Priesthood but was not allowed to go on a mission because he has a child he needs to support...so it (the age requirement) cannot be set in stone.

IMHO ... Nina

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:07 AM

I recently found out : Unless a young man or woman are going on a mission or are getting married, they are not allowed to take their endowments until they are in their late twenties.

I don't know where you get your information but its false. I have known and know at least a few who have received their endowment since President Hinckley was called. Ths standard is that our youth are not to receive their endowment until such time that they are sufficiently mature and reach a sufficient level of committment to keep the covenants they will make in the temple. Youth reach that level of maturity at differing times and so they receive their endowment at differing times. It is up to the leaders, bishops and stake presidents, as well as the individual to make such a determination. I don't think its wise or incumbant upon you to question those decisions. Let the Lord run his church the way he ses fit - he'll deal with any mistakes made by leaders.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Kevin+Sep 5 2004, 08:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kevin @ Sep 5 2004, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:07 AM

I recently found out : Unless a young man or woman are going on a mission or are getting married, they are not allowed to take their endowments until they are in their late twenties.

I don't know where you get your information but its false. I have known and know at least a few who have received their endowment since President Hinckley was called. Ths standard is that our youth are not to receive their endowment until such time that they are sufficiently mature and reach a sufficient level of committment to keep the covenants they will make in the temple. Youth reach that level of maturity at differing times and so they receive their endowment at differing times. It is up to the leaders, bishops and stake presidents, as well as the individual to make such a determination. I don't think its wise or incumbant upon you to question those decisions. Let the Lord run his church the way he ses fit - he'll deal with any mistakes made by leaders.

Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago, just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?

[Setheus]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 12:51 PM

Your example of work for pay isn't valid. Christ only asks for righteousness and worthiness through obedience. So did the church up until President Hinckley.

Christ only "asks for rightiousness and obiedience"

Employer only "asks for an honest days work"

Christ rewards "rightiousness and obiedience (to His commandments which are often times physical acts that must be completed ie baptisim)"

Employer rewards "honest days work (that he tells you to do and requires physical acts to get the job done whether it be answer a phone or dig a ditch)

Tell me again how Snow's comparrison of the Church and a job are so different again? I don't follow ya.

[Setheus]

oh, and HOW DARE the Prophet raise the bar on us! I mean what does he think he is?!? The chosen mouth piece of God or something!

[srm]

Originally posted by Amillia+Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Kevin@Sep 5 2004, 08:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:07 AM

I recently found out : Unless a young man or woman are going on a mission or are getting married, they are not allowed to take their endowments until they are in their late twenties.

I don't know where you get your information but its false. I have known and know at least a few who have received their endowment since President Hinckley was called. Ths standard is that our youth are not to receive their endowment until such time that they are sufficiently mature and reach a sufficient level of committment to keep the covenants they will make in the temple. Youth reach that level of maturity at differing times and so they receive their endowment at differing times. It is up to the leaders, bishops and stake presidents, as well as the individual to make such a determination. I don't think its wise or incumbant upon you to question those decisions. Let the Lord run his church the way he ses fit - he'll deal with any mistakes made by leaders.

Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago, just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?

May I recommend (no pun intended) that you go directly to the horses mouth so to speak. Ask this bishop and report back to us.

BTW...how do you know what happened in the recommend interview oftthis 19 1/2 year old elders' quorum president?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Setheus@Sep 5 2004, 09:29 PM

oh, and HOW DARE the Prophet raise the bar on us! I mean what does he think he is?!? The chosen mouth piece of God or something!

IOW raising it higher than he was required to do. How noble.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Nina@Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM

If, in fact, he(or she) does not go on a mission because he(or she) is ill or has a disability that does not allow him(or her) to go but is otherwise worthy I really truly think that if he(or she) went to his bishop or stake authorities they would take that into consideration.

IMHO ... Nina

What I know of it, the old bishop's boy feels like he is being led to join the Navy and serve his country. I feel that it is wrong to clump all the people into little pigeon holes. People just aren't made that way.

Moroni didn't serve, but in the service. Some are, perhaps, foreordained to serve the Lord in different places and ways. It isn't right to be so selective and exclusionary with giving out blessing of the higher endowments.

All through the scripures you see where special servants of the Lord were required to go a whole different way than the crowd. We know that President Hunter didn't fill a mission and Elder Ering only served a stake mission.

I agree with most of your post Nina, but I don't believe it is disobedient to follow the Lord's personal plan for you, just because it doesn't include the mission as recognized by the church leadership.

There are so many young men who are destroyed when they come home early. What if they weren't meant to go in the first place and their failure was due to that fact? Some only go because of peer pressure and it turns out really bad for them. Maybe they really felt like this bishop's son, that they weren't to serve a mission, but felt compelled to anyway. Can you really just dump everyone into the same mold? Christ wouldn't I don't think.

[john doe]

Personally, I think that 17 is usually too young for a girl to recieve her endowment without getting married. Was your friend unusually mature and have an unusually strong testimony of the gospel?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 10:07 PM

Personally, I think that 17 is usually too young for a girl to recieve her endowment without getting married. Was your friend unusually mature and have an unusually strong testimony of the gospel?

Yes she was and is strong. But probably so are many who are being refused the blessings today. And if it isn't church policy, then this bishop shouldn't have been told an outright lie.

[Nina]

"Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago, just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?"

Now I know you are not directing this to me but I would like to say that it is a very unfair question to pose nor is it one that can be answered by anyone here (but maybe could be by you who have the people and facts at your disposal ... )

Since at least two of us on this board (evidenced by our replies) know of people who have recently gone through the temple at earlier ages than that which you specified it is obvious that your statement regarding the age restriction is not entirely accurate(or should I say it is not "set in stone") ... but to ask if your Bishop was then lieing is not something anyone here can answer ... From what you say it seems as though you heard your present Bishop's statement that their is an age limitation through your neighbor ... well, maybe your neighbor misunderstood or exagerated or something ... if not that then maybe your Bishop was advisedthat he should weigh carefully before allowing young men and women to go to the temple and expressed it more strongly than just as a rule of thumb (if he was so advised) or maybe that was just his opinion.

I totally agree with Kevin that each young man or woman (or old man or woman) reaches maturity at different times and different ages and that that is weighed in the balance when deciding when to take out your own endowment. I remember when I joined the church (at 26) and I wanted to go to the temple after about 6 months membership ... I had heard that a young man in my stake had gotten permission to get his endowment out before his 1 year member mark had been reached. I REALLY wanted to get my endowment out too and went to the Bishop with this request. He turned me down and encouraged me to just keep on preparing. I was a bit miffed (maybe more than just a little )at first but soon I realized the wisdom of his remarks and decision ... I mention this because it makes it clear that not all "rules" are unbendable. Don't get your britches in a bunch over what was probably a misunderstanding or a personal opinion.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM

Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago, just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?

Let's see --- someone you know told you that someone else told them that yet another someone else said something.

That's practically proof positive.

Correct me if I am wrong anyone, but Elder Featherstone is not a General Authority.

Oh yeah and what's this - if Kevin disagrees with you that means your bishop is a liar? How do you figure?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia+Sep 5 2004, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Sep 5 2004, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Setheus@Sep 5 2004, 09:29 PM

oh, and HOW DARE the Prophet raise the bar on us!  I mean what does he think he is?!?  The chosen mouth piece of God or something!

IOW raising it higher than he was required to do. How noble.

So using your own word, in your opinion, raising the bar by the prophet was "EVIL."

Good think'n Amelia.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 5 2004, 10:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 5 2004, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:22 PM

Our bishop told it to our neighbor, who was our bishop 10 years ago,  just two nights ago. So did this bishop lie?

Let's see --- someone you know told you that someone else told them that yet another someone else said something.

That's practically proof positive.

Correct me if I am wrong anyone, but Elder Featherstone is not a General Authority.

Oh yeah and what's this - if Kevin disagrees with you that means your bishop is a liar? How do you figure?

Elder Featherstone was a GA and is now emeritus. Was the area president also of Utah South. Was Mission President of Micronesia while GA.

Now, our old bishop isn't just some neighbor. He is our trusted friend of over 30 years. There was no question about the age given him. He was told specifically that the prophet said: late twenties if not for marriage or mission.

Why do you always have to reply with such stupid brayings?

Kevin was in a bishopric wasn't he?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 5 2004, 10:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 5 2004, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 08:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Setheus@Sep 5 2004, 09:29 PM

oh, and HOW DARE the Prophet raise the bar on us!  I mean what does he think he is?!?  The chosen mouth piece of God or something!

IOW raising it higher than he was required to do. How noble.

So using your own word, in your opinion, raising the bar by the prophet was "EVIL."

Good think'n Amelia.

You like to add your own words and stuff them in my mouth. I believe you like to do this because you can't take responsiblity for what you say.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:19 PM

Why do you always have to reply with such stupid brayings?

So I was correct.

Now, about stupid brayings --- I'm not the one who calls temple requirements "EVIL" and I am not the one claiming that someone I know told me that someone else told them that yet another someone else said something and if you disagree with me the Bishop is a liar, Amelia

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:24 PM

You like to add your own words and stuff them in my mouth. I believe you like to do this because you can't take responsiblity for what you say.

Uh, no. You said (in reference to the what you claim are new requirements for the temple under President Hinckley):

It is coersion. Evil.

Now, Amelia, what have I said that I can't take responsibility for? What? Tell me one single thing.