Temple recommend question.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

Gimme a break. I have not said anything that would indicate that I am pro or anti-mandatory time limits. I had a friend who couldnt go on a mission until after a year had passed from his last indiscretion, and a guy on my mission fornicated while on the mission and was disfellowshipped for a year as outlined by his ecclesiastical leader. Hence my saying "I guess it depends on the ecclesiastical leader".

Never said you were....

I was simply posing a question....

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Never said you were....

I was simply posing a question....

Ok. My answer to your question is: "dunno. I dont believe what is written in the scriptures is the only influence on Church governance."

[All-American]

I think it's a good question. My understanding is that those who immediately changed overnight were not in full fellowship at the time of their sins and/or conversion.

Nevertheless, it is immediately apparent that overnight conversion and repentance is completely possible. I suppose that the waiting period is imposed not as a part of the repentance process, but as security, to make sure that the problem has been overcome. If the bishop were as good at reading the hearts of sinners as the Savior was, there probably would not be a "waiting period."

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

Nevertheless, it is immediately apparent that overnight conversion and repentance is completely possible. I suppose that the waiting period is imposed not as a part of the repentance process, but as security, to make sure that the problem has been overcome. If the bishop were as good at reading the hearts of sinners as the Savior was, there probably would not be a "waiting period."

Here is an example of why some people think the repentance process should include, the sinner, and the savior, strictly......

Why should I put my 'forgiveness' in the hands of a man whom I have no control over what he is doing?

As far as the waiting period is concerned I have read the letters concerning the 'mandates.' I believe they were written by SWK, and they essentially say there needs to exist a buffer between the sin and the time of service for certain callings. For 'serious' sins one should 'wait' for a year, if more sins are committed, it is up to the priesthood leader to determine how long a candidate should wait.....

[Colly Wolly]

My personal belief is that if one is "worthy" to take the sacrament, then they are "worthy" to enjoy the blessings of temple worship.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think I need to know more about the tawdry love affair in order to intelligently answer this question.

You should read more low-brow books like the rest of us. It would help you overcome that need.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by All-American

I think it's a good question. My understanding is that those who immediately changed overnight were not in full fellowship at the time of their sins and/or conversion.

Nevertheless, it is immediately apparent that overnight conversion and repentance is completely possible. I suppose that the waiting period is imposed not as a part of the repentance process, but as security, to make sure that the problem has been overcome. If the bishop were as good at reading the hearts of sinners as the Savior was, there probably would not be a "waiting period."

What about Corianton. He was the equivalent of an endowed priesthood holder missionary when he had his excursion. From the account in Alma, it appears he didn't have any mandatory waiting period.

I agree with who said that the church's discipline system looks nothing like the church in any scripture record. The church's size has mandated a lot of Pharisee-like policies just to maintain consistency across the board...

[All-American]

Corianton's is the only case I know of. You have to admit, though, there is not a lot of information regarding Corianton, so we can't exactly say what happened with him. That's not a good enough of an excuse, so I won't labor the argument.

I see the waiting period as a measure of safety; no more, no less. It's something Church leaders have instated in order to aid members of the church in the repentance process, though for some it would be unneccessary.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by All-American

Nevertheless, it is immediately apparent that overnight conversion and repentance is completely possible. I suppose that the waiting period is imposed not as a part of the repentance process, but as security, to make sure that the problem has been overcome. If the bishop were as good at reading the hearts of sinners as the Savior was, there probably would not be a "waiting period."

Overnight repentance is possible, perhaps, but pretty rare nonethless(just a guess). There are reasons for a waiting period rather than forgiveness alone. Sometimes a person needs to have an eye kept on him/her to make sure that old habits don't pop up again or that the person doesn't return to the environment that created the situation to begin with. Repentance is more than just being forgiven in one day and the sin(s) just being wiped away. Its about adjusting one's life to prevent(as much as possible) the sin from occuring again. If it does, the original forgiveness is null and void and in the meantime other people could be hurt as well as the temple being defiled. It only makes sense to be cautious.

[RockyBalboa]

In my entire life I've yet too see someone have to wait less than a year after repeated fornications or adultery before they are allowed back into the temple.