This is a topic I’m very interested in, because I think it is, indeed, a problem that is endemic to capitalist specialization. Of course there are tremendous efficiency gains in this kind of outsourcing, but I think this typifies a kind of unity that is lost in the process. Because my training is in economics, I’m much more verses in the efficiency gains than I am with the “alienation” that is created by this kind of contracting, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that the many sociologists (beginning with at least Marx and perhaps most recently famous with Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone) thinking about these kinds of issues have important things to say. So that I don’t sound too dour, I will say that this is becoming a topic of interest in other disciplines, including business disciplines (though really only seriously among organizational theorists and perhaps ethicists, on my reading so far…), and it seems many business cultures are making significant strides to reverse the kind of work-environment alienation that was becoming more and more common up until the last decade or so. Also, so that I’m not just pointing cyber fingers, and so that what I’m saying is a bit more concrete, I confess that during more than one service project I remember thinking how a business could do what we were trying to do in an exponentially more efficient way (e.g., canning, moving, yard cleaning, etc.) and that it felt like a waste of my time. Perhaps I’m the only one who’s had these kinds of feelings, but my sense is that our less and less civic-minded culture makes these kinds of attitudes all too common—and of course the point of service projects is not really to provide a service per se, but to build a community. Also, as I’m rambling, I think the enthusiasm that Obama generated and his “community building” experience (that Palin famously mocked) are not unrelated, and I’ll be curious to see how Obama’s presidency affects the culture(s) in America as it pertains to this issue (an issue that the literature sometimes terms “trust” vs. “economic” communities…).

I certainly did not mean for this lesson to be a guilt trip! Quite the opposite, really! (I try always to avoid creating guilt in teaching, which I think is always counter-productive.) I meant to suggest, rather, that it is helpful to explore what is behind the difference between the fire we see manifested in the building of temples and the relative lack of fire we see manifested in temple attendance (and especially in the living of covenants made there, as in the active pursuit of understanding the temple ordinances). Helpful: it helps us to realize that there is a reason for the centralization of the Church (it is emphatically not a mere consequence of the inevitable shift from charisma to bureaucracy, etc.), and that such centralization (of effort, which does not equal charity or unity) allows for—indeed, aims to allowing for—the much more “individual” work of genuine charity and unity.

This gives me hope! And so I read that same paragraph the way you do: Joseph is telling us that all the setbacks and such are just fine, and in fact are part of what allows us to do the work that can never be institutionalized.

Does that make sense?

Joe: I’m really just a hard-hearted scientist! My first and second comments can be kind of wrapped up into one and are reflective of how I read Joseph (in that last section). He seems to be saying, “Look, there’s this ideal (Zion) that we’re all working toward, but when you take a look at the individuals doing the work, you’ll think it’s impossible for Zion to ever rise out of such a flawed bunch. But if you can hold to your faith that God said Zion would rise—no matter how absurd that statement appears—then you will be blessed, etc.”

I realize that I’m sort of painting myself into a corner here, because now I’m basically saying that we shouldn’t discuss any problems in the Church and instead just close our eyes and believe that all will turn out right in the end. And I surely don’t believe that! But as I thought about what you wrote that warning light came on in my mind, so I threw my thoughts on it out there. I’m not sure what the balance is (between having faith that Zion will be built versus looking for ways that pre-Zion needs strengthening), but maybe it has something to do with how we approach the “problem”: I, for one, am not motivated by the guilt of not attending the temple enough; rather, I am motivated to go to the temple when I hear people express their joy of being there. (Again, I’m just typing as I’m thinking here….)

I suppose I should begin with a disclaimer that I am not a hard scientist! :)

That said, I’m definitely speaking from the poverty of my personal experience. Hence, my “remarkably low” statement reflects my personal shock at the rough estimates that have been mentioned to me by two different bishops in semi-casual conversations. Subjective, certainly, but nonetheless concerning.

So far as your second question is concerned, I’m not entirely sure I followed it. What exactly are you asking?

Regarding the third question. I have felt the same often enough, but I have also had jarring experiences to the contrary. I have had a very unfortunate experience the past few months with a member of my family who, as it turned out, had lied through temple recommend interviews for at least a decade, etc. As much as I don’t want to let that make me think that this sort of thing happens with some frequency, I can’t help being a bit more skeptical than I would like to be. In short: thanks for the reminder that there are many who go to the temple with the right desires.

To those who might be teaching this same lesson next week or so, it went very well today. They enjoyed talking about their feelings when temples were announced and built. We spent more time than I expected going carefully over the intercessory prayer and talking about being one, with each other and with Heavenly Father. (Hymn 171 is good.) We talked about unity in Relief Society–when they pass out the new visiting teaching slips, when we work together on Christmas parties, etc. We decided that the party was not as important as how well we treated each other while preparing for it–and I find that the sisters I’ve interacted with this afternoon have been very tender, so something must have touched them. Good luck.

Oh, I almost forgot. The example I mentioned in #3 above was not a missionary in the MTC, but a student in Italy. She was in a church building listening to conference with other English-speaking listeners, and there was a 1 or 2 minute delay in the translation. So–her room heard the room down the hall kind of explode with emotion, and then people running down the hall (she thought something bad had happened–until a member peeked into the room with tears running down his face and asked if they’d heard about the temple to be built in Rome.) There is a unity in joy.

We have a stake organist who plays the organ in our stake priesthood meetings in such a fantastic way (and I’m certain it’s how he plays) that I have actually felt unified through singing (and I would dare say BrianJ would enjoy singing in this situation). It is a feeling I have rarely felt, but sometimes have and always yearn for.

In a similar line, I rarely feel that connected with the congregation through prayer. I don’t know if this is just a personal problem, or a problem with the church in general.

I am curious what joespencer has to say about BrianJ’s comments

A remarkably low percentage of members of the Church keep current temple recommends, and among those who do hold recommends, attendance is much lower than it could or should be. And then even among those who do attend, it is sometimes doubtful that all are keeping the covenants they made in the very temple they are visiting.

In short, it is not, I think, the temple so much as the building of the temple that unites the saints. And this is what I want to tease out: Why is it that the physical building of the temple (building in both its senses: as a noun and as a verb) drives so much unity for the saints, especially when the temple and its ordinances do not necessary lead to so much unity?

First, I am cautious of publicized temple attendance/fidelity statistics when, to my knowledge, those are not published. Furthermore, “remarkably low” and “lower” are too subjective given the charge. Then again, perhaps I am too much of a hard scientist.

Second, how can we enter such discussions and then read Joseph’s words, “We would wish [that] the Saints…not expect perfection”? (And his whole paragraph.) I feel his words staring at us even now….

Third, I feel quite the opposite about the temple; i.e., I sense an incredible unity in purpose and spirit with those in attendance with me and also with the Church as a body. It is, in fact, one of the very few “church things” I do that leaves me feeling connected to the whole Church (as opposed to just my ward/stake/quorum). With the centralization of building plans and funds, and the hiring of professional contractors, I wonder just how much cause there still is in the building of temples. I lived in Utah Valley when Mt Timpanogos temple was being built, and I only remember some assignments being made for help with the open house.

Thoughts?

I think that would be an excellent way to get things focused. I myself well remember attending the dedication of the Spokane temple. :)

We know we should be unified (as spouses, as ward members) yet are so easily offended over little things, undone by our differences or bogged down in apathy. Or, in a state of rebellion.

I love the idea that we should extend our enthusiasm for building a temple (or a marriage, or a ward family) to the long haul of attending regularly, growing in truth, and keeping covenants/commandments. Overcoming prejudice, selfishness. I especially like your comments on the last section of the lesson:

“In other words, Joseph draws a very subtle distinction here between “truth” and “the cause of truth.” It is one thing to have an attachment to the cause of truth, and another thing entirely to give oneself to the truth itself. To build the temple is to be attached to the cause of truth; to attend the temple and to live the covenants one makes there is wholeheartedly to seek and to construct truth(s). In the end, these are miles apart.”

I like the idea of emphasizing temple attendance and application, which seem more “doable” than simply “being unified”; the idea that this positive action will lead us to having more truth, which will lead us to the state of holiness where selfishness, prejudice, immaturity and pettiness really have no place.

I thought I’d introduce the lesson by letting class members relate their memories of the announcement and building of our Spokane temple (or any other temple). Last month a sister related her daughter’s experience as an MTC missionary when the Rome temple was announced–she heard the Italian language room outburst! I think this introductory activity will gain the attention of the class, and focus them on this topic; it will also help us understand the enthusiasm of the early saints. I will ask what sacrifices any class members or their families have made for the building of temples.

I want to carefully review the “From the Life” portion of the lesson; I want to point out that when the 1st Presidency had their vision of the temple they were unified in purpose, and even in their physical orientation (all kneeling, all praying, then “…all of us viewed it together.”) I will ask the class to think of times when they are unified physically with fellow saints (singing hymns, praying, partaking of the sacrament, participating in class, moving through the temple, raising hands to sustain leaders, come to my mind.) I just want them to be more aware of the things we do that suggest/promote physical, and spiritual unity.

I will prepare a handout: “The Importance of Unity” with the related scriptures from the lesson, quotes from the lesson, and quotes from Elder Christofferson “Come to Zion” and President Uchtdorf “Lift Where You Stand” from 2008 Fall Conference.

We will then discuss the 3 main ideas of the lesson; I will conclude with your insight on the 3rd section.

Thanks again for your commentary!! Good luck to others teaching this lesson.