Temple crisis

[Sunday21]

Temple crisis. Apparently we have a world wide shortage of male patrons to do ....am I allowed to say this? Not sure! The longer ceremony (you know what I mean). For men, we are backed up to 2013 world wide. Consequently, the family sealings are backed up. So if you have not made plans for your vacation this year and you are a priesthood holder, could I possibly ask you to help us out? Now that I think of this, is this a temple crisis or a family history crisis? Anyway, if you have a few days this summer or even a spare afternoon, could you possibly help us out? Promise of big party in the next life! You guys come on down and visit me! Root beer on me!

Does anyone have any ideas about what to do about this? If you are a member of another lds board, could I possibly ask you to post a message? I am however a bit concerned that a push for men, may cause the sisters to slow up a bit. Obviously we have a gender imbalance but I don't want to discourage any sisters!

i wonder, almost, well this is controversial but as we do have a labor shortage male-wise, if we could have some sort of program to encourage endowed males to go to the temple. So what do we do when we need large numbers of people to do something? I gues we investigate what is the barrier to action and try to remove that barrier. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Sunday21

[JohnsonJones]

I think I expressed my feelings about the "longer ceremony" recently and how it makes me feel uncomfortable with how they've enacted it recently.  I still try to do a "longer ceremony" once a month, but I am extremely uncomfortable with certain liberties taken. 

The other item that may be hurting it in our stake is that they've pushed for us to only take family names to the temple instead of using the names that are in the temple itself.  I've sometimes thought that maybe I should not go so often because I don't have as many family names (they push it a lot, but I don't have an easy time doing my family geneology thus far, and hence I don't have a ton of family names to take with me to the temple).

If we can go without taking family names (at least for our area), a key thing to helping us may be to help us know that we should not feel guilty if we don't have any family names to take with us.  I was not aware that the church was backed up in that way.  I could try to do more temple work in that way regardless of how uncomfortable I feel I suppose, especially since I now have a lot more time then I used to.

[NeedleinA]

13 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Does anyone have any ideas about what to do about this?

Looking at my own little family... my wife is able to go the temple during the day. The kids are in school and I'm at work. Essentially my wife will make it 3x more than I will in a year, so we have a backlog a male names. Repeat my families situation x 1000 families and presto... male shortage. 

Even when I do go with her at night, the sisters out number the brethren by 2-3x for as long as I can remember. 

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

our stake is that they've pushed for us to only take family names to the temple instead of using the names that are in the temple itself.

This was a misconception in our stake for a "little" while too. There are thousands of names waiting to be done and not enough people to do them. Our temple has a case full of 100's of names submitted by our stake alone waiting to be done. Go, go and go some more guilt free! I think what happened was the temple was trying to encourage youth groups to bring their own names for baptism trips AND that whole push got mistranslated into general application for all member at all times. The Temple had to clarify things with the Stake  so people didn't think it applied to everyone.

[Sunday21]

Yes, I can understand how we ended up with such a gender imbalance! In addition, I think that we now have more retired people with limited mobility who are able to do genealogy but find a trip to the temple beyond them.

[Sunday21]

@JohnsonJones Thanks for going. We need all the help we can get!

[BeccaKirstyn]

Even at the YSA level, our ward temple trips consistently have more women than men in attendance. Usually 4 girls to 1 guy. 

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Even at the YSA level, our ward temple trips consistently have more women than men in attendance. Usually 4 girls to 1 guy. 

Are there more women than men in the church overall? 

[my two cents]

@JohnsonJones - fwiw - My friend has painstakingly gone through her family names and verified the info but due to health issues is not able to go to the temple herself.  On top of that, she can't do the male names anyway and can't rely on the few family members she has so the names sit there and she is left waiting and hoping that people will help out. My friend's situation is not uncommon so please don't feel guilty about not having your own.

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Are there more women than men in the church overall? 

Yes (pretty common in YSA wards), but not at the ratio of 4:1. I'd put it at 2:1. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Are there more women than men in the church overall? 

I have no statistics to back this up, but I am certain this is the case.

[JohnsonJones]

I know recent studies in Utah have shown that there is a rising difficulty for Woman in the LDS church for those who want a temple marriage.  Currently for YSA, I believe the numbers are 40% men to 60% woman.  This means that there are 1.5 woman for every man...which shows there is a problem for those woman who want to be married in the temple as the numbers between those two don't add up to anything near even.

This ratio gets worse as the ages get older.  It seems that as age increases for those that remain single, the number of men available dwindle drastically (much better odds of getting married with that ratio for starters), with less being available for first time marriages, and those that go through divorce have a far greater number of men that fall away than faithful LDS women.  By the time one gets into Single Adults in the mid 30s, odds are looking pretty grim for woman, and by their 40s, I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was some crazy ratio like 12 to 1 or 16 to 1 or something like that...aka...12-16 faithful LDS woman who want temple marriage for every faithful LDS man that wants temple marriage.

I've heard (yes, this is the rumor mill, so treat it as such most likely) that this is a little alarming for the brethren because for many woman they feel that if they want to be married in this life, it is going to need to be with someone outside the church.  There are multiple problems with this in that those who marry outside the church:

1. Do not have a temple marriage

2. Are more likely to fall away from the church

3. Their children are more likely to fall away from the church

This does not mean woman who marry non-members will fall away from the church or that their children will fall away from the church, just that the chances of it occurring are much higher.

I do not know what the solution is, except to encourage young men to remain faithful and not fall away from the church, but that's not the solution because I think we've already been doing that.  Perhaps that's also part of why we are encouraging young men to go on mission at 18 now, I recall that some mentioned that we were losing a LOT of those young men in that gap between 18 and 19. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not know what the solution is

I do . . . polygamy.

It would not surprise me in the least to see it come back.  In fact, if the Church moved on this issue, I could easily see them winning in the Supreme Court and reversing Reynolds vs. United States.

[Guest MormonGator]

@BeccaKirstyn and @Vort-thanks. 

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, yjacket said:

I do . . . polygamy.

It would not surprise me in the least to see it come back.  In fact, if the Church moved on this issue, I could easily see them winning in the Supreme Court and reversing Reynolds vs. United States.

Though I know the doctrinal reasons for polygamy and the whys and hows historically, personally, I would say I'm not really in favor of polygamy being brought back to the LDS church.

In fact, I'd say I'm pretty much solidly against it.  The only way I'd ever participate is if it were direct revelation to the Prophet and it was commanded. 

I don't consider it an option as a solution to the problem, once again, probably because I'm opposed to it as a solution.  That's a personal feeling though.

Edited March 23, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, I'd say I'm pretty much solidly against it.

Eh, works for me just fine. Right @zil?

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would say I'm not really in favor of polygamy being brought back to the LDS church. In fact, I'd say I'm pretty much solidly against it.

It's comforting to me that this is not a matter of individual taste or even majority vote.

[JohnsonJones]

I would think in this instance, that a majority of Mormons would feel similarly as I do.

They do not want to have the church practice polygamy.

They do not want the church to reintroduce polygamy.

They would rather leave it in the past rather than bring it to the present.

However, if the prophet, for some odd reason, ever does have a revelation to have the practice restarted, I think it would, in fact be up to a majority vote.  I'm thinking he would announce it in conference, but we would still have a sustaining vote whether to support him or the ideas/revelations produced at some point.

What would happen in that instance, who knows.  I think it would be a bigger issue where people may actually leave the church than any other issue that has occurred in the past 80 years.

Edited March 23, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

I have no problem with polygamy reinstated in the Church.  I see faithful members today having more than one wife already, each with their own set of children.  They divorce the wife, but they can't divorce their children so they have to maintain the relationship with the ex-wife.  I don't really see much of a difference between that and polygamy. 

Anyway, history has shown that even when it was a practice, it was reserved for the elect.  If my husband is commanded to take on another wife, I would be very happy that he is one of the elect so I'll have to figure out how to deal with a sister-wife.

But, I don't get how this solves the Temple crisis.

Edited March 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

18 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

do not know what the solution is

Flirt to convert?  

I'm just kidding.  

Also I understand your feeling about polygamy.  While I'm sure we all agree that it's not up to any of us, or majority vote, as Vort said, I'm also sure you would not be alone in your feelings.  A lot of people would have a HUGE problem with polygamy returning.  It would be hard because we were raised in a monogamous society. I don't mean that we couldn't do it, but it would be very hard for some (probably most) people. 

[The Folk Prophet]

The only part of polygamy coming back that appeals to me is the test it would be -- separate the wheat from the tares, etc. I guess there's something rather nasty about that sentiment now that I think about it. I should repent.

[SilentOne]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

But, I don't get how this solves the Temple crisis.

I don't think it was intended as a solution to the temple crisis. I think it was a solution for this:

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I know recent studies in Utah have shown that there is a rising difficulty for Woman in the LDS church for those who want a temple marriage.  Currently for YSA, I believe the numbers are 40% men to 60% woman.  This means that there are 1.5 woman for every man...which shows there is a problem for those woman who want to be married in the temple as the numbers between those two don't add up to anything near even.

This ratio gets worse as the ages get older.  It seems that as age increases for those that remain single, the number of men available dwindle drastically (much better odds of getting married with that ratio for starters), with less being available for first time marriages, and those that go through divorce have a far greater number of men that fall away than faithful LDS women.  By the time one gets into Single Adults in the mid 30s, odds are looking pretty grim for woman, and by their 40s, I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was some crazy ratio like 12 to 1 or 16 to 1 or something like that...aka...12-16 faithful LDS woman who want temple marriage for every faithful LDS man that wants temple marriage.

 

[Sunday21]

I am not convinced that the ratio is entirely a matter of males leaving, although more single men than single women may leave.

I suspect that more women than men join. In most branches of Christianity you see more women than men in the pews so more women than men may be interested in religion but..sending out an army of young men as missionaries is likely to attract more women than men.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Sunday21

[zil]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, works for me just fine. Right @zil?

In Fictionville, absolutely.  In Realityburg, I don't want to touch this discussion with a 10-foot pole.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

In Fictionville, absolutely.  In Realityburg, I don't want to touch this discussion with a 10-foot pole.

lol. I should state for the record that I'm not a polygamist. And my wife is @LadyGator, not @zil

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would think in this instance, that a majority of Mormons would feel similarly as I do.

They do not want to have the church practice polygamy.

They do not want the church to reintroduce polygamy.

They would rather leave it in the past rather than bring it to the present.

However, if the prophet, for some odd reason, ever does have a revelation to have the practice restarted, I think it would, in fact be up to a majority vote.  I'm thinking he would announce it in conference, but we would still have a sustaining vote whether to support him or the ideas/revelations produced at some point.

What would happen in that instance, who knows.  I think it would be a bigger issue where people may actually leave the church than any other issue that has occurred in the past 80 years.

Joseph Smith taught ' "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary [to lead] unto life and salvation." 

Now in today's modern church what pray tell do the majority of members really sacrifice? Compared to 100 years ago, very, very little is required of rank and file membership. Being a member of the Church today is very easy for a significant portion of members-especially in the US.

I think it is more likely today than at any time in the post.  Official Declaration 1 explicitly states that the reason why the Church discontinued polygamy was specifically b/c God revealed to Wilford Woodruff what would happen if it did not do so-the Church leaders would be jailed and the Church would collapse. 

All it takes right now is a reversal of the Supreme Court decision and the actual reason for discontinuing polygamy will be gone.