Who should be able to enter the temple?

[2bizE]

IIRC, in days of old, gentiles were not able to enter the temple. Only Jewish folks. I suppose that makes some sense.
Today, who do you think should be able to enter the temple? Anyone? Only members? What temple recommend questions should be used to decide?
Should there be different levels of recommends? For example, an adult could to baptisms for dead with the entry level recommend, but not sealings.

My thoughts: there should be only one question for a temple recommend: Do you have faith in Christ? Everything else is superficial.

[Hagoth]

How about this. A temple recommend is just a card that verifies that you are a member of the church.

There could be a general holy place in the temple where anyone can enter for spiritual contemplation, or put names on the prayer roll, etc, like the way anyone can enter and sit in a Catholic cathedral. Your membership card gives you access to parts of the temple where specific ordinances are performed. To keep a card you just have to check in with your bishop once a year to let him know that you still consider yourself part of the flock. If it lapses you can reactivate it by showing up for church and requesting renewal.

[Linked]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, their house, their rules. I wouldn't want someone else to be able to tell me who I have to let in to my house. On another hand, the mormon church only owns stuff due to donations, some of which I gave. I want my tithing back or a say in how the place is run.

On another hand, they are a public church. I don't think a lot of good comes from the hidden parts of a religion. I think they should do what the Hari Krishna temple in Spanish Fork does. Just let everybody in and let them participate as much as they would like, and have a meal at the end for a small donation.

[dogbite]

It's private property. They can make the rules.

Now if the church were communally owned and operated, i would lean towards the congregations that operated the local temple as making the rules that worked for their community mix.

High density communities might be more strict and communities where LDS are minorities might be more open to accomodate the mixed faith extended families they represent.

[2bizE]

I guess that brings up the question of who owns the church? Well, legally it is RMN, the corporation sole. So he makes the rules. However, without our donations the church fails to exist. If enough people put demands on how they want the church to operate then I think those demands would be met. Currently, the demands are to follow RMN.
I do like the idea of opening it up for all to attend. There are couples that spend every Friday night in the temple rather than going to a movie or out to eat. If everyone could enter, would it make the temple less interesting to visit? One truth the church won’t recognize is people like the exclusivity of it all. If everyone were admitted to a country club, then the top donors would stop donating.

[wtfluff]

Today, who do you think should be able to enter the temple?

I think human beings should be able to enter the temple. If a human has a service animal for a companion, I think those companions should be able to enter also. (I don't think service animals are currently allowed.)

What temple recommend questions should be used to decide?

Do you want to go inside the temple?

Should there be different levels of recommends? For example, an adult could to baptisms for dead with the entry level recommend, but not sealings.

I believe they already have these: Limited Use Recommend.

[Reuben]

I think church leaders should seriously consider the kinds of people Jesus graced with his presence, and why they believe his resurrection made him start acting like an obsessive, judgmental a**hole.

So yeah, my answer is "everyone."

[Mackman]

I think we should all be able to go to the Temple after all we all fall short no one is perfect. Maybe one question annually as mentioned earlier Are you still an active Latte r Day Saint ? God Bless

[alas]

If they are going to hold weddings in the temple, then ANY ONE who cares about the bride and groom should be able to enter, even the roudy children and babies who might throw up on their precious imported carpet, and drunk Uncle Ralph. If the bride and groom want to invite running screaming children and drunk Uncle Ralph, then what the blank business is it of the church to say they are not good enough to attend. In other words, they got no business having weddings and being fussy about who the bride and groom want at their wedding. The wedding should be about the bride and groom but the church makes it all about their BUILDING. Can you imagine any other wedding venue making it all about the *building* and not about the bride and groom? Only other person/thing I can think of that always makes everything about themselves is (un)president tRump. Don’t be like Don. There is a reason that some countries by law require weddings to to held in public places.

If they decide to only hold sealings in the temple, then who gives a crap about who they let in.

[misterfake371]

If I was in charge of the church I would get rid of temples altogether. We could do weddings in our ordinary meetinghouses. Other Christian denominations don't have secret buildings. The temples and the ordinances inside are kinda culty.

I think the church should stop building new temples, and I don't know what we should do with the ones that are already up and running. They are pretty buildings.

But listen, Jesus didn't teach secret knowledge to a closed group of people. He and his followers preached to anyone who would listen. Our church should be the same way.

Ha! I'm gonna renew my temple recommend tomorrow. What a crazy life I have.

[hmb]

If I'd seen what the temple was like, before getting the VIP card to enter, I would have never bothered. As a youth, the temple was mysterious and spiritual. Going, finally, was underwhelming. Until I learned the truth and disaffected, I thought it was a problem with ME. I wasn't good enough to get some cool revelation that all was true. I looked passed the weirdness and tried really hard to have my own burning bosom (I hate the bosom phrase. Haha). If you don't keep it a mystery, you will likely get fewer to pay for the opportunity to get fooled into become a card carrying member.

I'm glad I can't go. Some of my family still thinks I'm active. I attend Sac Meeting, but let it be known that I struggle with the temple and let my rec go. Other wise I'd be on the market for doing ancestor work. No thanks.

[Corsair]

I agree that the temples are private property and the church can make whatever rules they want about it. What they can't do is force anyone else to treat it with reverence, nor can they avoid bad PR when family members are excluded from weddings. It's a significant point that the LDS church is not seen as the bad guy when someone can attend the sealing of their own child. The civil marriage penalty further shames a couple that marries outside the temple.