Big Brother is Monitoring your Temple Attendance

[_Who Knows]

See the thread "So how could I have handed this better?" I bumped it earlier today for you.

[_charity]

See the thread "So how could I have handed this better?" I bumped it earlier today for you.

I don't have time to go back through all the posts. If you feel it is important enough to comment on, you must be looking at it right then. Otherwise, if you are only going on your memory, you could quite possibly be in error. So, if you are looking at it, reply to it and give me the quote. I am not going to go back, and try to mind read what you might or might not be referring to.

Is this a way to get me bogged down in a useless exercise? No thanks.

[_Who Knows]

Is this a way to get me bogged down in a useless exercise? No thanks.

No, this is to demonstrate that i was right, and you were wrong, and while you're accusing me of making something up, it appears that you're guilty of the same.

You initially said:

The rule in the CHI is that funerals take precedence.

Then Jason bourne and road to hana questioned you on this:

I think you are not correct.

I just looked through the manual under Church Building, Use of Church Buildings, Funerals and Weddings. There is not one word about whether a funeral or a wedding take precedence. The CHI does NOT say funerals take precedence. Perhaps this is your ward or stake position but there is nothing in the manual to justify the Relief Society presidents position.

Do you have access to the CHI that you can cite the relevant passage that indicates that?

Then you replied:

No, I don't. The CHI stays in the bishop's or clerk's office. But any member can go sit in the clerk's office and read anything they want. You just can't take it home with your.

Then road to hana replied:

I know where the CHI's go and don't. I'm just wondering why you're citing something you haven't specifically seen.

You might think you don't lie, but you do misstate. You assumed based on the words of a bishop and your own interpretation something and attributed it to official print in the CHI.

To which you replied:

We had quite a long discussion of this in that 3rd hour meeting. A situation had come up recently in the stake where a funeral and a wedding were in conflict, and there were lots of questions. The bishop had the CHI in his hand and read it to us.
Your assumptions (we heard only the bishop's ideas about the subject) often get in the way of clear thinking. Which is why you come up with such prickloy and erroneous ideas.

Alter idem even chimed in later and confirmed that there is nothing in the CHI on this. A couple people called you out for this, but you never returned to the thread.

[_truth dancer]

You should listen more closely. Even with the new bar coded temple recommends, neither bishops nor stake presidents receive any reports back on who attends when. There is not even any way to track how many people from any specific ward or stake attend on special "temple days." They might take a count at the chapel session, but then the stake president is there and sees that and doesn't need the temple president to tell him.

I am a volunteer temple recorder and know whereof I speak.

Do you non-temple attenders know there is no mechanism for taking down names of people who go to the temple? In those temples which use bar coded recommends, they are specifically prohibited from collecting that information either by name of the person or ward or stake they attend. They do know how many people attend on each day. But as raw numbers, males and females. That is it.

Patrons do not register, do not sign their names on lists, nothing. When wards and stakes are given assignments such as baptisms, initiatory or sealings, bishops can know who participated from their wards, because these people sign up to go. And in the temple, groups are known only by the number of people attending, not by names. For instance, they know that X number of young people with X number of adults are coming in for a baptism assignment. But they don't even know how many actually show up. People do not sign up to do endowments at all. And when the ordinance cards come in for recording, we do not know which group even did how many ordinances. All the temple records is total number done. .

I really would like to see the accusation spelled out.

I did not accuse you of anything.

What did I claim the Church stated?

I did not suggest you claimed anything the church stated. I said your thoughts may not resemble what the church would state.

~dancer~

[_BishopRic]

Sometimes I think Charity belongs to a different church than the one we do/did.

[_charity]

I just looked through the manual under Church Building, Use of Church Buildings, Funerals and Weddings. There is not one word about whether a funeral or a wedding take precedence. The CHI does NOT say funerals take precedence. Perhaps this is your ward or stake position but there is nothing in the manual to justify the Relief Society presidents position.

Alter idem even chimed in later and confirmed that there is nothing in the CHI on this. A couple people called you out for this, but you never returned to the thread.[/quote]

I am going to have this checked in the next day or two and will respond back.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yesterday, the stake president spoke to our ward on the new 'stake theme for the year' (they have a different theme each year). The theme this year is about temples. I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention, but then he said something that made my ears perk up. He said he gets a report from the temple president on the members that have attended the temple. Right before this, he was talking about ward temple trips. So I'm not quite sure if he was just referring to those ward temple trips, or temple attendance in general.

I just thought this was interesting as some were speculating the new 'bar-coded' recommends would enable tracking of temple attendance.

Anyone else heard anything about this?

SPs do not get detial of who attends. They do get a report of total endowments for their stake but it is not broken down by ward or person.

[_Jason Bourne]

Even with the new bar coded temple recommends, neither bishops nor stake presidents receive any reports back on who attends when.

You don't know what reports an SP or bishop gets about the temple -- it would be very, very easy with the new barcodes to generate a report of who attended the temple.

I am a volunteer temple recorder and know whereof I speak.

So what. If a report is sent to local leaders I doubt you would know about it.

I know what they get. And it is not detailed. As noted, it is simply total endowments for their stake. That is it.

[_Who Knows]

SPs do not get detial of who attends. They do get a report of total endowments for their stake but it is not broken down by ward or person.

Then how do you explain the SP talking about the 'same names' that keep showing up on the report, and how he wanted to see some new names show up?

Perhaps this is just for our stake, or the stakes for the Mt. Timp. temple. Perhaps it's just for ward temple trips. I don't know. But what I do know, is that the SP told us he gets a report directly from the temple president, listing attendees by name for each of the wards in the stake.

In time, i'll be vindicated here. You'll see.

[_The Nehor]

I'm curious as to how they can even know how many endowments each stake does. The Temple Recommend is scanned on the way in but there is no exit scan so there is no record of how many or what ordinances you do. I guess you could monitor the Ward Temple Trips by a simple count.

I know in some wards they used to have a person assigned to report on Temple Attendance. This involved them inviting those in Sunday Meetings to give a report if they've gone to the Temple within the last month. I haven't seen that done in about ten years though (since before I had a Temple Recommend). I suppose it's possible other wards and stakes are still doing it.