...(eg about adherence to the WOW), is the temple work done by that person for the dead still valid? How about that person's own endowment/sealing?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2016 07:26AM by durhamlass.

It's as "valid" as if the prophet himself had done it. ;)

Perhaps better. After all, the prophet (JS at least) was guilty of much more than violating the WoW.

Since it was never "valid" in the first place...sure. It's as "valid" as it ever was. As "valid" as any hand-waving, secret-handshaking, stolen-from-the-Freemasons, funny-hat-wearing ceremony could be.

Still, yes -- the church might declare it "invalid." As I've mentioned here before (though this doesn't have to do with lying), a member of my ward growing up found out he had a black ancestor 4 or 5 generations back that he hadn't known about, when doing his family history. The church immediately declared his Aaronic priesthood ordinations (which he'd had done at the usual young ages) "invalid," his Elder status "invalid," his temple marriage "invalid," his endowment "invalid," and removed him from his calling as YM leader -- all "invalid" because he had (in their words, not mine) "the blood of a cursed race flowing in his veins."
Then they tried to get him to re-do it all about six months later, when in 1978 they changed the rules.

He, as he should have done, essentially showed them his middle finger as he left and took his family with him.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer in the first place- I know that none of it is really "valid" as it's all a load of old tosh, but the brethren must be aware that some people do tell porkies to get their TRs. I just wondered if there was an official policy about this.

It was explained to me that the ordinance would still be valid but extra bad points would go against you during the judgement for defiling the temple with your unrighteousness.

I don't know of any official policy about it, and I'm pretty sure the church won't have one. It makes sense, following the reasoning that:

- Having a policy on this basically means the church would have to admit that people can lie and get a temple recommend

- This means that your Bishopric and Stake Presidency aren't "all that", which is NOT something the church wants to convey, it's of utmost importance for the church that people follow the chains of authority at all times

However, the closest thing I can think of is back during the priesthood ban. I believe if you were as little as 1-64th black you weren't supposed to be able to get the priesthood or a temple recommend, and I read about cases there were people who looked "white" who were later found to have a black great-grandparent or whatever and would lose everything they did church-wise.

The old farts themselves have told more than just a few whoppers to get where they are. That's A ok. It's the little people that aren't allowed to do that sort of thing.

The official position, and I'm cc:'ing Tommy on this, is that ghawd doesn't deny the benefits to the officiated-on because of the sins of the one doing the officiating.

I learned from Rev. Pathos Lagrimas, whom I met in Mexico while on my mission, that there was ample evidence to confirm that just before Jesus went into the Garden of Gethsemane to take upon him the sins of all the world, that he had gazed with lust upon a woman sunbathing at the entrance to the garden. But Elohim accepted the ordinance (of paying the price for infinite sins) and the deed was done; we were all saved, despite Jesus thinking the whole time about whether the young lady would still be there when he was done.

By the way, Pathos Lagrimas later left the Catholic church and moved to San Bernardino, to live with one of his illegitimate kids, his oldest daughter, Fornecia. I ran into him in 1987 and we've stayed in touch... Interesting guy, but not a lot of laughs.

This is a not about temple recommends, but similar. Back in the day, I gave one of my kids a blessing and a name in a fast meeting. I gave a grandiose speech/blessing but I didn't use the words, "by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood" in the blessing. After the meeting the bishop pulled me aside and said I need to do it over again as it was invalid and my child still didn't have a name. So, in a private prayer circle jerk in his office I did it again and used the proper words. Then my kid had a name.

So basically, if it's enforceable, such as whether or not you uttered certain words, then doing it wrong invalidates it and you have to do it over. If it's NOT enforceable, like knowing whether or not you were actually "temple worthy" when you did temple work, then anything you do is TOTALLY valid and it's simply "shame on you."

In 2008, at his public inauguration, President Obama mis-spoke a few words when taking the oath of office as written in the Constitution. Not many people noticed, but afterwards, they took him into a private room and he took the oath again, word-perfect, just to make sure!

Whoever gives you the TR receives inspiration as to whether you are worthy or not. So if you lie and it renders you unworthy, the Lard would let the Bishop, or whoever, know. So all that matters is what inspiration they receive.

They can't do it any other way. It would make it very obvious that none of those goons receive any inspiration. And good liars can tell them anything.

Let's see.....you lie to obtain a pass for permission to perpetrate a fraud. No harm, no foul from where I'm sitting.

RB

I had enough of a hard time using the right words in baptizing. Being that I know modern English, I said "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost..." WRONG! Stop the music. Being an exacting order, it could not count because I had left out the extra "and of thes". Look, no-one needs the extra words as in modern English it is not necessary. I also ran into deep trouble when, in giving the sacrament prayer, I pronounced the "THATs" as "thit" because the pronunciation varies as to the meaning of the word. No sir, it had to be the emphatic THAT with the at being so pronounced. After three tries, the bish gave up. Fortunately for me, in the next thirty-two years I was NEVER asked to give a sacrament prayer. Only mos pronounce that in that way.

BTW there are several other words I noticed over the years being pronounced in TSCC differently.

When I was the Ward Clerk, and had responsibilities over tithing and temple recommend lists, it was obvious that most temple recommend holders were not full tithe payers. If you lie, go to the temple, if you are truthful, you will be denied. It’s a great system.

I didn't lie. He asked me if I was masturbating. I said I wasn't, and showed him both hands to prove it!

Oh ha !!!!

I had been completely inactive (and fairly heavily involved in "sinning," which meant drinking coffee and beer, and fooling around with women) for about six months when my brother got married. No TR. It's just that nobody in my family knew any of that.
So I trundled up to SLC, put on my dormant garmies, and marched proudly into the temple. When asked to show my TR, I feigned looking for it in my wallet, and feigned distress at apparently having "misplaced" it. No problem, my church-bigwig uncle, my high priest step-dad, and my brother all vouched for me, insisting I MUST have one since I had just recently returned from an honorable mission. So in I went, and acted as a witness to his funny-robed "wedding."

Years later, I told my brother that I'd lied my way in; that I had no TR, that I'd already been inactive, and that if I'd had to go be honest in a TR interview, they'd have refused to give me one. I thought his head would explode. I could see him mulling over how nobody (including himself) had found the "inspiration" to see through my charade, and send me packing. After a while, he just said, "Aren't you ashamed of doing that?"

"Nope," I replied. "Otherwise I wouldn't have been able to see you get married, or show that this priesthood "inspiration" thing is a crock." And I smiled.

He's never mentioned it since.

I never did get the lying. No one told me to lie. It seems like a terrible compromise to discover that lying is mandatory for advancement. For me, it's a deal breaker. I don't feel like lying my way to a dishonest reward.

Me neither. I've never wanted to be in the temple bad enough to lie to get in even when I was TBM. And that's the truth!

Having a recommend just didn't resonate with me during those years I was active LDS. Maybe it was the funny garments my parents wore. Or their divorce that was supposed to last forever that didn't survive. Or the hypocrisy of the church members I went to church with, with their elitist sense of entitlement that left me cold.

I doubt the temple ever undoes what it does, regardless of which members deceive to gain admittance.

The work must go on in Mormondumb! Busy work that it is, without it, there'd be no need to have temples.

Oh Hell Yes... It's valid what ever that means. Someone wasted some valuable time doing whatever in the "temple". Don't discount someone's voluntary misery with such an question.

There was a little booklet we used in the temple preparation class and I clearly remember one line in reference to lying prior to getting the TR or going to the temple:

"God will not be mocked."

I remember reading that and thinking, "And neither will I."

And the angel said unto Joseph Smith, "Bazinga!"

When is lying to proven liars really lying?