temple worker... to be or not to be?


sister_in_faith
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been pondering becoming a temple worker for a few years now... I am disabled and have some memory issues. I have prayed about it in the temple and the spirit told me not to worry about that being a stumbling block. My bishop thinks it's a great idea, I just have to 'formally' ask, and I haven't yet. I don't know why I am having a hard time deciding when to do this. I really just want to be useful and help people, and I think that this is the perfect opportunity :rolleyes: hummm...

Anyone have any experiences they would like to share about serving in the temple as a worker that would help me take the plunge???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no experience with that but have wondered if I ever would be able to do that because of my memory problems as well. In your case it seems to me that there is lot of work for people to do that dont require all that much memory. If your bishop thinks you can do it I am sure that the temple has use for you and will help you when necessary if needed.

You are so fortunate to have this chance. I hope you go for it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have the opportunity to be a temple worker, I highly encourage you to take it. For me, it is easily the most rewarding temple experience I've ever had.

Just be honest with the temple presidency and your shift coordinator about your concerns and what you do and don't feel comfortable doing. They consider it a priority to make your experience a good one and free of embarrassment, if that's what you're worried about.

If your primary worry is not being able to do the work, I assure you, you'll be an asset--even if you don't feel like you're being an asset, someone in that building will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not an ordinance worker. But I volunteered in the temple for 7 years. It is wonderful and when the temple here is rebuilt I'll be volunteering again.

When I first volunteered it wasn't a calling. You filled out a form saying you can time and they called you to work wherever you were needed. About 3 years ago they made volunteering at the temple a calling. Being set apart for the work added a deeper spiritual level that surprised me. It was the same work but the spirit was more evident.

Go for it. Working in the temple environment is the most loving, forgiving, welcoming job I've every done. I truly miss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been an ordinance worker for going on 9 years. I started out in the baptistry and then a full ordinance worker.

When you work in the temple there are no limitations. You are supported by a full staff of temple personnel on both sides of the veil that will help you. It is an amazing spiritual work with amazing experiences. It is the most important work you can be involved in. It will change and mold your life and bring you closer to God.

Good Luck and welcome to the work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious. How is it that you go to the temple and are also shacked up as related in the other thread? http://www.lds.net/forums/marriage-relationship-advice/42506-something-nice.html#post623631

It seems to me that in most places you can't get a temple recommend if you are living with someone. Unless I misunderstood and your definition of being in a common-law relationship is different from mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious. How is it that you go to the temple and are also shacked up as related in the other thread? http://www.lds.net/forums/marriage-relationship-advice/42506-something-nice.html#post623631

It seems to me that in most places you can't get a temple recommend if you are living with someone. Unless I misunderstood and your definition of being in a common-law relationship is different from mine.

Color me confused.

She stated clearly that she lives with her boyfriend and they are not yet married.

When I had my (limited) Temple recommend interview a couple of weeks ago, I was most definitely asked if I was living the Law of Chastity. I know the questions are the same for everyone. I am having a hard time imagining that an answer something to the effect of "I live with my boyfriend, but not 'that' way" would get the stamp of approval from the Bishop. Or is there something I just don't get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doe feel free to call me out on something pretty personal in a very open manner!!! :eek:

My boyfriend and I started seeing each other before I joined the church. We had started living each other, but were not engaged in any sort of inappropriate behavior. As I have said before, my health rapidly declined to the point where I could not function on my own. I had to have someone administer medications to me daily. I could not live on my own if I wanted to.

Before I could be baptized I had to meet with the mission president to make sure that it was okay for me to be baptized while I lived with a male not of my family. He gave me permission.

When it came time to recieve my temple recommend my boyfriend was brought in and spoke with the bishop. Our situation was unchanged, and I recieved the go ahead to recieve my endowment.

As you can see I hide nothing about my situation from my priesthood leaders. They understand the need that my boyfriend fills, and they also know that we are living in accordance to my covenants.

Insofar as being common-law married, we are. We fit all the requirements according to state law. My boyfriend does not want to get married right now, but several of my past and my current bishops who know all the details tell me that if he was to pass away, I could, one year later, do his temple work, and be sealed to him for time and eternity. That is good enough for me, so I try not to rock the boat.

Does that answer your questions, or would you like more detail?:glare:

Ps. Mr. Doe the use of the term "shacking up" is derogatory and offensive to me. The whole tone of your post makes it seem like I am doing something I am not supposed to do, which we can see is clearly not the case. I don't know what I have done to provoke your disapproval, but it seems sad to me that we, on an LDS website, cannot just have a fun conversation without being disrespected. ugh. The problem with us Christians is that some times we don't act very christlike, do we?:taz:

And with that! Im going to bed.

Edited by sister_in_faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still confused.

All a couple living together has to do is state that they are not engaging in any sexual activity and it is okay to live together? You have to live together so your boyfriend can "administer medication", but you are healthy enough and do Temple work. I am curious as to what the Church's guidelines are for allowing couples to live together prior to marriage. If I had been LDS when I was engaged to my late husband, I could have lived with him without the benefit of marriage and been okay with the Church as long as it was for medical reasons?

I am surprised that the Church is okay with common-law marriage in that you are therefore living together for a number of years before you are recognized as married. So it is okay to live together unmarried just so long as you eventually live together long enough to qualify for common-law marriage?

I guess I have some research to do, in order to understand all of this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the situation makes sense, in a non traditional sort of way. Especially since it started before she was a member. Now that she's a member and wishes to follow the laws of the land and church, a common law marriage counts as a marriage for her end of things. I doubt that a common law marriage is acceptable for the church in most situations, but there really are so many individual circumstances that aren't cookie cutter perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, here's the best response for any of us: If multiple priesthood leaders who actually know you, understand your situation and authorize a temple recommend... who are we? We are just anonymous names on an LDS chat board.

(But you gotta understand how we can get confused though, right? On the surface your situation is not in keeping with what we have been taught in how to live LDS standards.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Doe feel free to call me out on something pretty personal in a very open manner!!! :eek:

My boyfriend and I started seeing each other before I joined the church. We had started living each other, but were not engaged in any sort of inappropriate behavior. As I have said before, my health rapidly declined to the point where I could not function on my own. I had to have someone administer medications to me daily. I could not live on my own if I wanted to.

Before I could be baptized I had to meet with the mission president to make sure that it was okay for me to be baptized while I lived with a male not of my family. He gave me permission.

When it came time to recieve my temple recommend my boyfriend was brought in and spoke with the bishop. Our situation was unchanged, and I recieved the go ahead to recieve my endowment.

As you can see I hide nothing about my situation from my priesthood leaders. They understand the need that my boyfriend fills, and they also know that we are living in accordance to my covenants.

Insofar as being common-law married, we are. We fit all the requirements according to state law. My boyfriend does not want to get married right now, but several of my past and my current bishops who know all the details tell me that if he was to pass away, I could, one year later, do his temple work, and be sealed to him for time and eternity. That is good enough for me, so I try not to rock the boat.

Does that answer your questions, or would you like more detail?:glare:

Ps. Mr. Doe the use of the term "shacking up" is derogatory and offensive to me. The whole tone of your post makes it seem like I am doing something I am not supposed to do, which we can see is clearly not the case. I don't know what I have done to provoke your disapproval, but it seems sad to me that we, on an LDS website, cannot just have a fun conversation without being disrespected. ugh. The problem with us Christians is that some times we don't act very christlike, do we?:taz:

And with that! Im going to bed.

I said I was curious, not being judgemental. From your postings it is obvious that your situation is not normal or conventional. But let's look at it from a normal point of view, shall we?

In the normal LDS world your situation is considered highly unusual. It is not normal for a person to be cleared for baptism if they are an adult living in the same dwelling with an adult of the opposite, regardless of whether they are sexually active or not. Add the fact that you call yourself common-law married adds another element to the abnormality of the story. I have never run across someone who claims to be in a common-law relationship that doesn't also cross the lines of the Law of Chastity.

And yeah, I'm sorry if the term 'shacking up' is offensive to you, but that is what common-law marriage is. Unrelated adults who live together without the benefit of a proper marriage are considered to be shacking up by most normal people in the world. If that's offensive to you, then I really can't help it, it is what it is.

And then when you add in the fact that you seem to be sufficiently able to be out and about that you say you are going to the temple and are considering being a temple worker, and a normal person has to ask himself questions. Questions like how it is that you can go through the temple and consider yourself able enough to think about being a temple worker, yet you aren't able to give yourself medications and thus need someone to live with you to administer them to you.

You have to admit to yourself that to a normal person, those things don't quite add up. A normal person would ask themselves what's going on. Especially when someone pops up on an anonymous message board talking about very specific unconventional and highly unusual situations. There are holes here that have not been filled, and as I said, I was curious how it all came about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insofar as being common-law married, we are. We fit all the requirements according to state law.

I'd run this one by a lawyer in your jurisdiction. In most states, "cohabitation" is a requirement for common-law marriage; and most courts interpret "cohabitation" as entailing a sexual relationship.

It's none of my business whether you're either temple-worthy (i.e. celibate), or whether you are indeed common-law married. But (for whatever it's worth) I'm not aware of a single state in the US where you could be both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before hearing this story, I was thinking that if you put 100 women-who-live-with-their-boyfriends in front of their Bishop for a temple recommend interview, none would receive the temple recommend (asusming they answered honestly). Now I hear the story, and assuming it's true, I guess 99 won't and 1 will.

*shrug* What can I say? I've never heard anything like this before in my 15+ years of talking with folks. All I've ever heard is "we're living together and I have unrealistic expectations of going to the temple without making any changes" -type stories. You're the first to claim that church leadership knows your situation and is ok with you going to the temple.

Anyway, absolutely - if you're worthy to go to the temple, go. You will not be the first temple worker with a challenge or disability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a guy... I have run it by a lawyer... the biggest thing I would have to prove (if I was trying to prove our common-law status in court) is that we have held ourselves out to be a married couple. I wear a wedding ring most of the time, and I call him my husband half the time. That was the only thing the attorney stressed. Everything else was just fine. But your post makes me think I should talk to another one just to be sure. Hummmmm....

my bishops have always told me that if he passes away that i would be able to be sealed to him a year later, which makes me think that the common law status must be valid. I donno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a guy... I have run it by a lawyer... the biggest thing I would have to prove (if I was trying to prove our common-law status in court) is that we have held ourselves out to be a married couple. I wear a wedding ring most of the time, and I call him my husband half the time. That was the only thing the attorney stressed. Everything else was just fine. But your post makes me think I should talk to another one just to be sure. Hummmmm....

my bishops have always told me that if he passes away that i would be able to be sealed to him a year later, which makes me think that the common law status must be valid. I donno.

I would definitely talk to another attorney if I were you. It sounds as though you are common law married in your eyes, but have done nothing to have it legally recognized by the state. From some of the research I did last night, a common law marriage is not a legal marriage unless you have taken the necessary steps to have it legally recognized by the state you live in. (And as another poster pointed out, not every state recognizes common law marriage) If you complete that process, you are recognized as having a legal marriage ONLY from the time it has been formally recognized by the state. Just because someone says they are common law married or qualify for it, doesn't necessarily make it true, nor does it make it a legal marriage. Nor does the fact that YOU consider it a common law marriage make it one. My understanding is that the Church recognizes legal marriages (of course, not legal gay marriages) and in that instance, could recognize a common law marriage as long as the proper steps have been taken to make it legal. But if you haven't taken those legal steps......

Another concern is the fact that you stated your boyfriend does not want to get married (and you have referred to him as your boyfriend several times). Is the Bishop not concerned about that? Is he aware of that? Is he aware that you haven't taken the steps necessary to make this a legally recognized marriage? I don't understand how one can be considered to have a common law marriage if one party has no interest in being married. That would be a problem with having a common law marriage recognized.You refer to him as your boyfriend and he has no interest in marriage, so I am confused as to how you would meet some of the requirements of intent.

If you consider yourself married, why not take the legal steps necessary to make it a legal marriage?

I must admit the whole common law marriage thing perplexes me in general. If a couple thinks of themselves as a married couple and presents themselves as one, why not get legally married? Where is the intention of commitment? How is this different from couples who live together for years who do think of themselves as having a common law marriage? Is the difference having the common law marriage card to pull out if and when it becomes beneficial in some way down the line? To obtain some legal gain or - in this case - a Temple recommend?

I guess I just have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of people considering themselves to be married, but do not wanting to bother with actually getting married. Where is the up-front commitment to being married? Does this give a pass to cohabitating couples? If they have been living together long enough, the Church can just call it a common law marriage and it's all cool?

I think some of the other posters gave you great advice in recommending getting married. If you consider yourself married already, it shouldn't be a big deal to make it legal in one way or another. Either get the common law marriage legally recognized, or go to the Courthouse and get married. But then you've said your boyfriend doesn't want to get married, so I am back to being confused again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sister_in_Faith,

Thank you for your post. It really does help to clarify and I can understand how unique this situation is.

One reason that it's good for clarification on a website like this, is that our site is about promoting the standards of the church and living up to our covenants. Yet, when an exception is given without explanation, it can be read by others as "this person did it... and it was okay by their bishop." So for others reading this thread, I'm glad for the clarification.

Now, this thread did turn to the subject of marriage. Is it possible that he feels more like a caregiver and protector than a boyfriend/husband? This could be one of the reasons why he hasn't felt comfortable to move forward to 'formalize the marriage'.

Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to why we haven't gotten married yet.... you would have to ask him personally why. I don't understand it myself. He is a lot older than me, and was married once before. The first marriage did not go well at all. He simply says he doesn't want to 'be' married. I started looking into the legalities of common law marriage when I started worrying if we could be sealed or not if something happened to him (he is older than me, and he works in a dangerous profession). I didn't look into it to try and get anything out of it. I never even brought that up during the temple recommend discussion. This is kind of a non issue to me. I have been given permission to get sealed to him and that's all I wanted. I just brought the point up because I do call him my husband a lot, and if I did that in a post, I didn't want someone to go "Huh?".

To confuse the situation a little more... He is fine with me telling people we are married. He doesn't correct people who call him my husband. He is fine with me wearing a wedding ring, and he would be okay with me changing my last name to his. Men!!! I just don't understand them sometimes! Can any guy relate to the "I don't want to be married" concept? It confuses the heck out of me.

Edited by sister_in_faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: Cohabitation usually refers to an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married. More broadly, the term can also mean any number of people living together.

We fit as having an emotionally intimate relationship (notice the and/or part).

just another thought

AND I just realized that this week is 'Mental Illness Awareness Week'... I hope that my situation can be helpful to others, and maybe will help everyone to be a little more understanding with your fellow brothers and sisters who are in the same boat I am. We have to be so careful about judging someone else's situation, especially when we don't have the details. We also have to realize that no one really 'owes' us an explanation about their situation. As members of the church we should be content with letting the priesthood leaders who are in charge handle it, and let that be sufficient for our curiosity. I am not saying this directed at this message board, but really towards members of my ward, and members of other's who are in my situation's wards... It is really difficult to deal with everyone's disapproval when you know you haven't done anything wrong or immoral. I'm just saying let's judge a little less, and love a little more!

Edited by sister_in_faith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: Cohabitation usually refers to an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married. More broadly, the term can also mean any number of people living together.

We fit as having an emotionally intimate relationship (notice the and/or part).

It's not a question of how Wikipedia defines it, it's a question of how the courts in your jurisdiction define it. For instance, the Utah Court of Appeals in Garcia vs. Garcia opined

That the plain meaning of ‘cohabitation’ requires a sexual relationship between members of the opposite sex.

Additionally in Pendleton v. Pendleton the Utah Court of Appeals said:

[c]ohabitation is comprised of ․ two elements:  (1) common residency and (2) sexual contact evidencing a conjugal association.

Source: No.?20010656-CA. - GARCIA v. GARCIA - UT Court of Appeals

My point is not that you are not legally meeting the requirements of cohabitation for your state (even if you lived in Utah I'd be inclined to say it doesn't look like it not that you aren't, I'm not a lawyer), my point is please don't rely on Wikipedia (unless it's quoting relevant code or findings for your jurisdiction and even then be a bit wary) or a dictionary if the actual fact of the matter is important.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to why we haven't gotten married yet.... you would have to ask him personally why. I don't understand it myself. He is a lot older than me, and was married once before. The first marriage did not go well at all. He simply says he doesn't want to 'be' married. I started looking into the legalities of common law marriage when I started worrying if we could be sealed or not if something happened to him (he is older than me, and he works in a dangerous profession). I didn't look into it to try and get anything out of it. I never even brought that up during the temple recommend discussion. This is kind of a non issue to me. I have been given permission to get sealed to him and that's all I wanted. I just brought the point up because I do call him my husband a lot, and if I did that in a post, I didn't want someone to go "Huh?".

To confuse the situation a little more... He is fine with me telling people we are married. He doesn't correct people who call him my husband. He is fine with me wearing a wedding ring, and he would be okay with me changing my last name to his. Men!!! I just don't understand them sometimes! Can any guy relate to the "I don't want to be married" concept? It confuses the heck out of me.

I still do not understand how/why the Church considers you married when you are not married by any legal definition (despite what you think or what you read on Wikipedia, you do not have a legal marriage, not even a legally recognized common law one) and when one party has no desire to be married. I've not heard of sealing being allowed to someone to whom you were not legally married to in the mortal life.

And, no, Dravin is not judgmental as you implied elsewhere. When I had my interview for my Temple recommend, after the interview, the Bishop asked me why it was important to be worthy for the recommend. He explained that it is not just for those for whom you perform ordinances, he explained how it is also important for the person performing the ordinances. For without being worthy for the recommend, they will also not receive the full blessings of the work they are doing. Your own welfare is also under consideration here.

If you are living with someone and there is any doubt (which there seems to plenty) of whether you are legally married, wouldn't you want to clear that up so as to protect/benefit yourself, as well as others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share