Service Dog question...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Myhappilyeverafter said:

No, this is a medical alert service dog, required to be by my side 24/7 by my medical team. A companion for comfort is an ESA (emotional support animal), just so you know, they aren't service dogs. So the comfort companion would be an ESA, not a service dog.

I'm curious.  If you don't mind me asking, what condition do you have that your dog is trained to detect?

[mdfxdb]

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Seriously? 

Being disabled is NOT a sin...What are you on?  Someone who has epilepsy is NOT simply throwing their life away if they go to the temple.  The Lord loves them just as much as anyone else.

In that light, yeah, we are probably done here.  I think discussing this with someone who judges people with disabilities as such and condemning them in this manner is probably going to make me get impolite sooner than later, and that's not a good thing for me to do.

So, I think we are done here on this item, or at least I am in regards to you. 

The question I asked still stands in regards to what type of legal situation would arise....but probably not towards you on this one.

You're missing the point.  Omega isn't stating that disability is a sin.  Not at all.  He is stating that knowingly engaging in a selfish act is a sin.  

If I knowingly take a risk which will inconvenience, or endanger myself or others just because I want to participate in an activity, then one could argue I am making a selfish decision.  

On a legal note, if something were to happen to this person while they were in the temple, and the temple denied them access to their service animal, then perhaps there is grounds for a lawsuit.  Anyone with $500 can sue anyone for anything rightly or wrongly.  Doesn't matter that Religious institutions are exempt from the ADA.  Throw a dead person in front of a jury because they couldn't take their dog to church, and see how much sympathy you get.  

[omegaseamaster75]

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

And on that I should probably end it.  I expounded on this due to expanding on my first post.  These types of attacks on individuals that are disabled are probably just going to make me angry and make me come out with statements I should not state.

Who is attacking disabled people? Grow up.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Because the blessings of the temple are great enough to warrant the risk.

You bring your ancestors and relatives among the dead the saving ordinances they need.  What price can one set on that?

Or, if one has not been to the temple and received their own ordinances, to receive the saving ordinances of the Kingdom and to be sealed for all eternity to their family.

I understand the approach; but if temple ordinance participation is that crucial - why don’t we send out “temple teams” to non-mobile retirees in convalescent homes, armed with white clothing and a DVD of the endowment ceremony so that they can administer endowments, anointing, sealings, etc. in the privacy of an aged member’s hospital room?  

To some extent, the Church seems to hold that there is a set of sine qua nons for the effective administration of temple ordinances, which must be upheld even if they serve to prevent some people from receiving those ordinances at all.  At present, one of those essential elements seems to be that the ordinances should actually occur in a temple.  Another seems to be that animals do not come into the temple. Maybe that’ll change in the future; and in the meantime there are avenues to address it in a dignified and productive way.  Histrionic public comments about how the Church hates disabled people, are not one of those productive approaches.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Temple Recommend standards?   What Temple Recommend standards?

This is about what I'd expect from the guy who flooded the Houston Temple, then tried to blame the weather, and even boasted about it online !

On 8/29/2017 at 10:02 PM, Carborendum said:

The Houston Temple was closed for regular maintenance this past weekend (at the beginning of the storm).  They were scheduled to open again in two weeks (just after the storm is over).  I think they'll need just a little more time.

 

[Sunday21]

@askandanswer Dude! 

[JohnsonJones]

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I understand the approach; but if temple ordinance participation is that crucial - why don’t we send out “temple teams” to non-mobile retirees in convalescent homes, armed with white clothing and a DVD of the endowment ceremony so that they can administer endowments, anointing, sealings, etc. in the privacy of an aged member’s hospital room?  

To some extent, the Church seems to hold that there is a set of sine qua nons for the effective administration of temple ordinances, which must be upheld even if they serve to prevent some people from receiving those ordinances at all.  At present, one of those essential elements seems to be that the ordinances should actually occur in a temple.  Another seems to be that animals do not come into the temple. Maybe that’ll change in the future; and in the meantime there are avenues to address it in a dignified and productive way.  Histrionic public comments about how the Church hates disabled people, are not one of those productive approaches.

The church does NOT hate disabled people, but those who would judge disabled people to be guilty of sinning simply from doing what people who are NOT disabled might.

Despite what some may have said in this thread, the LDS CHURCH HAS NEVER TURNED AWAY SOMEONE FROM GOING TO THE TEMPLE because they were sick, ill, handicapped, disabled, or any other arena in that matter.  They have NEVER SAID that someone who has difficulties (for example, sickle cell which could kill someone rather quickly) cannot go to the temple.

Anyone saying that someone who may die from an affliction, disease, handicap or otherwise should NOT go to the temple is actually speaking contrary to EVERYTHING I've ever seen in regards to who can go to the temple.  The temple standards are based on worthiness which is determined in a temple recommend interview...NOT upon physical health or that someone is physically superior to another person.  Any comments that someone who suffers from a condition which could cause death or injury should NOT go to the temple is only reflecting a personal thought of theirs and NOT INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING in regards to the temple.

From what I've observed in the surrounding temples, almost 50% of the temple workers would fall into the category some have labled here of being selfish.  Most of them are older (like me) and probably suffer from a great deal of maladies which could prop up at any time (the chances are rare typically, but they are greater for the older folks than the younger folks).  In fact, it could be a greater chance (and it actually HAS happened) that one of us older individuals will die while working in the temple or going to the temple to do our templework.

That people would indicate that MY BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW are EVIL simply for going to the temple to get their endowments and sealed together recently, or any other Faithful, righteous, and enduring member of the church, is selfish and evil for getting their temple work done IS offensive in many ways.

We are taught and told that this is a RIGHTEOUS DESIRE.  Yes, we can have righteous desires...and NO, they are not considered sinful.  You can have a righteous desire to be baptized, to do the work of the lord, to get your endowments, to be sealed to your family.

We have a prime example of someone who had a MUCH higher chance of being deceased who went to the temple (admittedly, not as often as he used to) and even more...attended General Conference and even SPOKE at it...was Thomas S. Monson evil for going to the temple during the last year of his life (and there was a great chance of things going very badly at times).  Are any of the Apostles, or at times the Emeritus Seventies?

This is not histrionics about the church hating disabled people...but THIS IS being seriously disturbed by PEOPLE hating disabled individuals or others who suffer maladies which put their health in precarious situations and proclaiming those individuals sinners for doing the Lord's work.  The church does NOT HOLD the VEIWS which have been expressed in this thread against those who have ailments with their health.  In fact, if anything, the church shows the exact OPPOSITE of what people have stated regarding those with disabilities and ailments.  The church encourages these individuals to go to the temple and to do the Lord's work.  It brings up a legal question on my part, but that question is out of curiosity rather than hostility.

There are MANY examples of people going to do temple work when their health is not optimal.  To say that these people are selfish and sinning seems to be to have some sort of seriously wrong aspect to it, because to me, those who are doing temple work even with these health problems are more an indication of the pure love of Christ than what we see from Most people out there.

These are NOT people on death's door.  Someone who has need of a service dog is NOT someone who cannot get up and move around.  It is NOT someone who has done anything wrong simply because they need or require a service dog.  I utilized the example of my relatives because it was pertinent, but this could apply to anyone.  I've seen individuals with artificial hearts...and early on some of them stood a VERY HIGH chance of dying if they went to the temple.  I know of others (including General Authorities) with heart conditions and uncontrolled diabetes and other ailments that hit the elderly.  This is NOT a sin, and going to the TEMPLE is NOT a sin for them.  The church allows and ENCOURAGES members to go to the temple.  It is NOT considered selfish to do so for your ordinances or the saving ordinances of others.

The church does NOT discriminate against people like my brother in Law or his wife.  The FACT that someone (s) in this thread would think these individuals are being selfish to go to the temple astounds me. 

I'll answer your other question in a secondary post, because there ARE answers to that.  HOWEVER, your attack about "histrionics" is NOT histrionics about the church in any way, shape, or fashion, but it IS being offended by those who are expressing discriminatory and prejudiced statements against those who are handicapped.  Statements which I may add are NOT held by the LDS church and are NOT supported by LDS policy.  LDS policy is NOT one of discrimination, and ANYONE who is worthy can go to the temple, worthiness being determined in the Bishop and Stake interviews as defined by the temple recommend questions.

[JohnsonJones]

16 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I understand the approach; but if temple ordinance participation is that crucial - why don’t we send out “temple teams” to non-mobile retirees in convalescent homes, armed with white clothing and a DVD of the endowment ceremony so that they can administer endowments, anointing, sealings, etc. in the privacy of an aged member’s hospital room?  

To some extent, the Church seems to hold that there is a set of sine qua nons for the effective administration of temple ordinances, which must be upheld even if they serve to prevent some people from receiving those ordinances at all.  At present, one of those essential elements seems to be that the ordinances should actually occur in a temple.  Another seems to be that animals do not come into the temple. Maybe that’ll change in the future; and in the meantime there are avenues to address it in a dignified and productive way.  Histrionic public comments about how the Church hates disabled people, are not one of those productive approaches.

Temple ordinance participation IS THAT crucial.  The reason we do not send out "temple teams" is because typically this situation has already been addressed.

For those who cannot go to the temple due to mental handicaps or handicaps which make it so that they cannot account for their actions, they are held to be under the same coverage as those children that are under the age of 8.  They cannot understand or make choices to the point that they can be held accountable, and as such, are encompassed by the atonement of Christ.  This means the ordinances are NOT required for them in this life, as spoken of in Moroni 8.

For those who are in comas and unable to go to the temple, there are two situations.  The first are those who were healthy and able earlier in life and later fell into this situation.  For them, they normally had many opportunities to go to the temple, and delaying to a later point was an unfortunate choice.  For others, who have been in or near that state, it is likely that they also would fall into the situation described above in regards to accountability and the atonement.

Almost all who are unable to actually attend the temple have had the opportunity previously when they were healthy.  Most individuals who are bed ridden have not always been so.

In instances of those who are unable to move but who have accepted the church, it is HOPED for that they will have members to aid them in their righteous desires to go to the temple.  IF the temple is alerted to this situation and can prepare for it, they will make EVERY POSSIBLE accommodation allowed by the church to enable these individuals to have their temple ordinances completed.  I have seen quadriplegics have their temple ordinances completed by themselves.  I have also seen them do work for the dead.  They may be paralyzed for most of their body, yet they are STILL able to attend the temple.  The church encourages ALL to be worthy to go to the temple and to attend it if possible.

The only ones that may be prevented by health are those who are completely bedridden (and we mean by this, more than a quadriplegic would be, which means pretty darn bed ridden, and normally probably also not cognizant at that point to a degree), otherwise, it is almost always the choice of the individual of whether they will go to the temple or not go to the temple. 

In the RARE instance of one who is has the mental and emotional capacity to accept the church and be baptized (and yet, if they are physically able to be baptized, it calls to question why they could not go to the temple), and then is unable to receive their own ordinances in the temple, they are not held accountable of any sin in this life in that regards.  They MAY have to wait upon OTHERS to do their temple work for them if needed, which the church tries to avoid, but they themselves are not accountable for having caused any sin of commission or omission . The exception is that the LDS church does not normally adhere to the principle of deathbed repentance or deathbed conversion.  It is possible one converts on their deathbed, but in these instances, once again due to the late delay, or unfortunate chance that they learned about the gospel this late in life, they will probably have to wait for their ordinances to be completed by others in the temple.

In regards to WHY temple work is so important...

D&C 128:18

Quote

17 And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the ^arestoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says, last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you ^bElijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

  18 I might have rendered a ^aplainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a ^bcurse unless there is a welding ^clink of some kind or other between the fathers and the ^dchildren, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the ^ebaptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the ^ffulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the ^gfoundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto ^hbabes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

 

From the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Manual

Elijah and the Restoration

Quote

Then, in another glorious vision, Joseph and Oliver saw the prophet Elijah (see D&C 110:13–16). The coming of Elijah was so important that the ancient prophet Malachi had prophesied of it centuries earlier, and the Savior had repeated the prophecy to the Nephites (see Malachi 4:5–6; 3 Nephi 25:5–6; 26:1–2). Elijah came to commit to Joseph and Oliver the keys of sealing—the power to bind and validate in the heavens all ordinances performed on the earth. The restoration of the sealing power was necessary to prepare the world for the Savior’s Second Coming, for without it, “the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming” (Joseph Smith—History 1:39).

From a Talk by Elder Bednar in 2011

The hearts of the children shall turn

Quote

We learn from latter-day revelation that Elijah held the sealing power of the Melchizedek Priesthood and was the last prophet to do so before the time of Jesus Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “Elijah”). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the … fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood … ; and to … obtain … all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 311; emphasis added). This sacred sealing authority is essential for priesthood ordinances to be valid and binding both on earth and in heaven.

Elijah appeared with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration (see Matthew 17:3) and conferred this authority upon Peter, James, and John. Elijah appeared again with Moses and others on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple and conferred the same keys upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Scripture records that Elijah the prophet stood before Joseph and Oliver and said:

“Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—

“To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—

“Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors” (D&C 110:14–16).

The restoration of the sealing authority by Elijah in 1836 was necessary to prepare the world for the Savior’s Second Coming and initiated a greatly increased and worldwide interest in family history research.

Hopefully that answers your questions in that regards

Edited May 2, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The church does NOT hate disabled people, but those who would judge disabled people to be guilty of sinning simply from doing what people who are NOT disabled might.

Despite what some may have said in this thread, the LDS CHURCH HAS NEVER TURNED AWAY SOMEONE FROM GOING TO THE TEMPLE because they were sick, ill, handicapped, disabled, or any other arena in that matter.  They have NEVER SAID that someone who has difficulties (for example, sickle cell which could kill someone rather quickly) cannot go to the temple.

Anyone saying that someone who may die from an affliction, disease, handicap or otherwise should NOT go to the temple is actually speaking contrary to EVERYTHING I've ever seen in regards to who can go to the temple.  The temple standards are based on worthiness which is determined in a temple recommend interview...NOT upon physical health or that someone is physically superior to another person.  Any comments that someone who suffers from a condition which could cause death or injury should NOT go to the temple is only reflecting a personal thought of theirs and NOT INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING in regards to the temple.

From what I've observed in the surrounding temples, almost 50% of the temple workers would fall into the category some have labled here of being selfish.  Most of them are older (like me) and probably suffer from a great deal of maladies which could prop up at any time (the chances are rare typically, but they are greater for the older folks than the younger folks).  In fact, it could be a greater chance (and it actually HAS happened) that one of us older individuals will die while working in the temple or going to the temple to do our templework.

That people would indicate that MY BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW are EVIL simply for going to the temple to get their endowments and sealed together recently, or any other Faithful, righteous, and enduring member of the church, is selfish and evil for getting their temple work done IS offensive in many ways.

We are taught and told that this is a RIGHTEOUS DESIRE.  Yes, we can have righteous desires...and NO, they are not considered sinful.  You can have a righteous desire to be baptized, to do the work of the lord, to get your endowments, to be sealed to your family.

We have a prime example of someone who had a MUCH higher chance of being deceased who went to the temple (admittedly, not as often as he used to) and even more...attended General Conference and even SPOKE at it...was Thomas S. Monson evil for going to the temple during the last year of his life (and there was a great chance of things going very badly at times).  Are any of the Apostles, or at times the Emeritus Seventies?

This is not histrionics about the church hating disabled people...but THIS IS being seriously disturbed by PEOPLE hating disabled individuals or others who suffer maladies which put their health in precarious situations and proclaiming those individuals sinners for doing the Lord's work.  The church does NOT HOLD the VEIWS which have been expressed in this thread against those who have ailments with their health.  In fact, if anything, the church shows the exact OPPOSITE of what people have stated regarding those with disabilities and ailments.  The church encourages these individuals to go to the temple and to do the Lord's work.  It brings up a legal question on my part, but that question is out of curiosity rather than hostility.

There are MANY examples of people going to do temple work when their health is not optimal.  To say that these people are selfish and sinning seems to be to have some sort of seriously wrong aspect to it, because to me, those who are doing temple work even with these health problems are more an indication of the pure love of Christ than what we see from Most people out there.

These are NOT people on death's door.  Someone who has need of a service dog is NOT someone who cannot get up and move around.  It is NOT someone who has done anything wrong simply because they need or require a service dog.  I utilized the example of my relatives because it was pertinent, but this could apply to anyone.  I've seen individuals with artificial hearts...and early on some of them stood a VERY HIGH chance of dying if they went to the temple.  I know of others (including General Authorities) with heart conditions and uncontrolled diabetes and other ailments that hit the elderly.  This is NOT a sin, and going to the TEMPLE is NOT a sin for them.  The church allows and ENCOURAGES members to go to the temple.  It is NOT considered selfish to do so for your ordinances or the saving ordinances of others.

The church does NOT discriminate against people like my brother in Law or his wife.  The FACT that someone (s) in this thread would think these individuals are being selfish to go to the temple astounds me. 

I'll answer your other question in a secondary post, because there ARE answers to that.  HOWEVER, your attack about "histrionics" is NOT histrionics about the church in any way, shape, or fashion, but it IS being offended by those who are expressing discriminatory and prejudiced statements against those who are handicapped.  Statements which I may add are NOT held by the LDS church and are NOT supported by LDS policy.  LDS policy is NOT one of discrimination, and ANYONE who is worthy can go to the temple, worthiness being determined in the Bishop and Stake interviews as defined by the temple recommend questions.

There’s a nuance that I fear you may be missing.  I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Church should or does discriminate against disabled people.  What is being suggested is that some of the equipment, paraphernalia, and/or entourage that certain disabilities require in the temple cannot reasonably be accommodated given the Church’s current operational practices for its temples.  That may well have an indirect effect that makes it impractical for some disabled folks to attend the temple.  Why, for example, should 0.5% of temple patrons’ need for a service animal trump 5-10% of temple patrons’ animal allergies?

As for my remark about “histrionics”—it was supposed to be a general statement, and I’m sorry if anyone interpreted it as a jibe at you specifically.  That said, I think discussions of this nature tend to be a little more productive if we avoid using all caps.  

[Just_A_Guy]

@JohnsonJones:

In the RARE instance of one who is has the mental and emotional capacity to accept the church and be baptized (and yet, if they are physically able to be baptized, it calls to question why they could not go to the temple), and then is unable to receive their own ordinances in the temple, they are not held accountable of any sin in this life in that regards.  They MAY have to wait upon OTHERS to do their temple work for them if needed, which the church tries to avoid, but they themselves are not accountable for having caused any sin of commission or omission . The exception is that the LDS church does not normally adhere to the principle of deathbed repentance or deathbed conversion.  It is possible one converts on their deathbed, but in these instances, once again due to the late delay, or unfortunate chance that they learned about the gospel this late in life, they will probably have to wait for their ordinances to be completed by others in the temple.

Just so; thanks for making my point for me.  There is a statistically minuscule subset of people whose special needs can’t reasonably be accommodated in the temple, and the Lord does not hold those people responsible for their disabilities. 

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

There’s a nuance that I fear you may be missing.  I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the Church should or does discriminate against disabled people.  What is being suggested is that some of the equipment, paraphernalia, and/or entourage that certain disabilities require in the temple cannot reasonably be accommodated given the Church’s current operational practices for its temples.  That may well have an indirect effect that makes it impractical for some disabled folks to attend the temple.  Why, for example, should 0.5% of temple patrons’ need for a service animal trump 5-10% of temple patrons’ animal allergies?

As for my remark about “histrionics”—it was supposed to be a general statement, and I’m sorry if anyone interpreted it as a jibe at you specifically.  That said, I think discussions of this nature tend to be a little more productive if we avoid using all caps.  

I never suggested to allow someone with certain disabilities to have their service dogs in the temple, but was curious about what might happen legally if something happened to an individual in the temple due to not bringing the service dog with them. 

Someone else made VERY discriminatory statements about those who have ailments being sinful for going to the temple and doing temple work...statements that go contrary to everything that the church does or allows in regards to worthy LDS members no matter WHAT their health status is. 

The LDS church temple workers, IF they are able (and for many this means they need to have something to schedule or forewarn them so that they can be prepared with any accommodations that they can do) do as much as humanly possible to accommodate any individual that has impediments in the temple to allow members to do their templework.  I have seen them go to extraordinary extents to make this possible.  It is a personal choice whether to go to the temple.  Choosing to go, even if there are risks, is not a sin in my opinion, and the church does not see it as a sin either. 

Those proposing such a thing (that for those who have ailments which may cause them to die while doing actiivties are sinning - and it is very blatant in some comments in this thread) are NOT reflecting church policy.

Even without physical handicaps, there are stories of many who sacrificed all they had and more simply to get to the temple ONE TIME to get their personal templework completed.  It is that important to them and the church does not say that this sacrifice is in vain or sinful.  In fact, in many instances church leaders have used these stories as examples of how important it is for one to go to the temple, even if it costs them all that they have including health and wealth.

[JohnsonJones]

Forum Glitch (forum reboot as was writing this post originally).

Edited May 2, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[omegaseamaster75]

On 5/2/2018 at 9:03 AM, JohnsonJones said:

The church does NOT hate disabled people, but those who would judge disabled people to be guilty of sinning simply from doing what people who are NOT disabled might.

Despite what some may have said in this thread, the LDS CHURCH HAS NEVER TURNED AWAY SOMEONE FROM GOING TO THE TEMPLE because they were sick, ill, handicapped, disabled, or any other arena in that matter.  They have NEVER SAID that someone who has difficulties (for example, sickle cell which could kill someone rather quickly) cannot go to the temple.

As well they shouldn't I don't think it is the policy to turn anyone away

On 5/2/2018 at 9:03 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Anyone saying that someone who may die from an affliction, disease, handicap or otherwise should NOT go to the temple is actually speaking contrary to EVERYTHING I've ever seen in regards to who can go to the temple.  The temple standards are based on worthiness which is determined in a temple recommend interview...NOT upon physical health or that someone is physically superior to another person.  Any comments that someone who suffers from a condition which could cause death or injury should NOT go to the temple is only reflecting a personal thought of theirs and NOT INDICATIVE OF ANYTHING in regards to the temple.

You need to get a grip on reality, if you may die as a result you "should" consider your attendance very carefully. 

On 5/2/2018 at 9:03 AM, JohnsonJones said:

We are taught and told that this is a RIGHTEOUS DESIRE.  Yes, we can have righteous desires...and NO, they are not considered sinful.  You can have a righteous desire to be baptized, to do the work of the lord, to get your endowments, to be sealed to your family.

Sometimes even a righteous desire can be sinful if it leads to the harm of others or yourself but we live in a world where people do not have to be responsible for their actions nor care for the welfare of those surrounding them. We can choose to play God with our own lives if we want to and no one better ever dare say anything contrary to what my "righteous" desires are. How dare they. 

On 5/2/2018 at 9:03 AM, JohnsonJones said:

That people would indicate that MY BROTHER AND SISTER IN LAW are EVIL simply for going to the temple to get their endowments and sealed together 

Did someone say they were EVIL? show the post to prove it or redact your false post.

On 5/2/2018 at 9:03 AM, JohnsonJones said:

There are MANY examples of people going to do temple work when their health is not optimal.  To say that these people are selfish and sinning seems to be to have some sort of seriously wrong aspect to it, because to me, those who are doing temple work even with these health problems are more an indication of the pure love of Christ than what we see from Most people out there.

Again, anyone who is worthy "CAN' attend the temple. Whether you SHOULD or should not is a personal decision. Individuals are allowed to hold their own opinions about such actions. Which opinions are NOT reflective of church policy, and are solely held by the possessor of such opinions for their benefit or detriment as the Lord sees fit.

[JOSHPAL]

this is quite a dilemma. I think that as long as the dog is respectful to the lord in the house of worship then you should be fine. May God love you and your dog ❤️

[zil]

Welcome, @JOSHPAL!