Welcome to New Nauvoo


Author Topic: Temple  (Read 4939 times)

Grunt

  • Greenie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #90 on: January 07, 2019, 04:47:38 pm »
I had to explain to my son that I did not agree with what the TP implied to my son and felt that certain details of the temple ceremonies were in error or incomplete.


Annnnnnd on that note......
 

JLM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Thanked: 269 times
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #91 on: January 07, 2019, 05:00:28 pm »
What else should I think?  The gender inequalities in the temple were in direct conflict with the the most teachings by the Q15 regarding spousal relationships, and in direct conflict with ny sense of right and wrong, my light of Christ you might say.  It never sat well with me that husband and wife covenants to each other weren't equal and reciprocal.  These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper

Grunt

  • Greenie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #92 on: January 07, 2019, 05:16:14 pm »
These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.

Where was that put out?
 

Iggy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
  • Thanked: 213 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2019, 08:03:21 pm »
What else should I think?  The gender inequalities in the temple were in direct conflict with the the most teachings by the Q15 regarding spousal relationships, and in direct conflict with ny sense of right and wrong, my light of Christ you might say.  It never sat well with me that husband and wife covenants to each other weren't equal and reciprocal.  These revealed changes largely correct the previous errors of men.
Ya got a big mouth - revealed way too much already.
 

Roper

  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1484
  • Thanked: 1795 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2019, 10:08:48 pm »
The temple ceremony has continually evolved. Washings and annointings changed significantly a few years back. Specific penalties were eliminated from the endwoment before that. My mother tells of a time when they used to sing a hymn at a certain place in the presentation of the endowment. My grandmother told of garments that went to the wrists and ankles. I expect it will continue to evolve as time progresses.  I don't think I would characterize past temple practices "wrong." Maybe a better way to understand is that they were appropriate for the light and knowledge at the time. We have received additional light and knowledge, and it's appropriate our most sacred forms of worship reflect that. I hope that future generations will look back at the way we currently do things and be merciful, knowing that we did the best with what we had.
 
The following users thanked this post: dyany, Taalcon

cook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 434
  • Thanked: 376 times
  • Country: fi
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2019, 11:25:39 pm »
Talcoon, with the 'rules of the temple', in most I think you missed the vital 'late teens, early twenties'. It has not been about not allowing single people, just vety young of them.

When I was preparing to go on a mission, I struggled a bit because I left right before I turned 22. Up until then it had been that without mission or marriage you'd have to be 21 to get ypur endowments. It was juzt raised 23. And my bishop wanted to obey that, even if there was the word generally. Why was it hard? Because I had just associated with a group of young Utahns in Russia, where most of the girls, 18 and 19 had received their endowments - to be a protection in the scary world now that they travelled. Heard it was vety common. And most of those girls had no idea about what they'd done, the covenant keeping wasn't the best. I think there is a point in not doing the covenants too early (generally), when you're not going on a mission or getting married, which we kind of get you more rooted in the gospel. The latter not necessarily, or less so than the mission, but can't have a sealing without the endowment.

I'm not sure about the married sisters never getting their recommends renewed if married to a non member. I was too young to remember them talk about it 86, but I think I've heard stories about it being ok if the nonmember husband gave a permission. (Another issue itself of course)

But at least in the 90' single members certainly could get their endowments without mission or marriage. Some if us just faced bishops who wanted to be on the very safe side considering the phrase young.
 

JLM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 301
  • Thanked: 269 times
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #96 on: January 07, 2019, 11:44:56 pm »
So I share my personal feelings and experience on a matter and I get two personal attacks.  Nice. 
 
The following users thanked this post: AndrewR, Roper

Jacaré

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 108 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #97 on: January 08, 2019, 12:02:08 am »
I, for one, appreciate your insights, JLM.
"He was old, Ephraim. He was 52."
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper, Taalcon

AndrewR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 450
  • Thanked: 483 times
  • Country: gb
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #98 on: January 08, 2019, 04:15:08 am »
Quote
BUT the idea that a woman had no reason to seek and obtain further Covenants with God without a Husband there to take them through (hence, the phrase I've heard often since becoming lds, "Sisters, find a worthy man to take you through the Temple", without ever hearing the flipside, "Brothers, find a worthy sister to take you to the Temple") DOES have substantial weight in history, policy, and culture. And the history of the text and presentation of the Temple ordinances themselves would have absolutely supported, if not explicitly prompted those ideas.

However, the onus to get a spouse has always been, and in part continues to be, on the man. I lived through the period when a woman was not able to receive her endowment. It started to change about 32 years ago. And I am sure that precipitated the 1990 change. The thinking was, and it is correct really, that the endowment is not of any benefit unless one is sealed. The blessings of the endowment are accessed through the sealing - eternal life.

There are, of course, other reasons for receiving the endowment, and so the change took place.

These are all policies, not doctrine. At present a person in high school can not receive their endowment, even with a mission call. But if they did, it would still be valid.

I still maintain that nothing that has happened has changed doctrine (in the accepted LDS sense).
Don't ask me, I only live here.
Nauvoodle since March 2005 #1412
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper

AndrewR_admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 68 times
  • Country: england
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #99 on: January 08, 2019, 04:27:03 am »
I just feel the need to step in here with my other moniker.

As an admin here, and as a Temple Ordinance worker of 25 years, and as a priesthood leader of 30+ years, and as someone who has taught temple preparation for almost that entire time.

I do not believe that anyone has overstepped the mark on what may be discussed in terms of the sacred nature of the endowment. No specific wording, no signs, tokens or names.

For me, or at least the real Andrew R., being able to discuss these matters with different people that I have come to respect as much as, and possibly more than, the members of my own ward, is of great worth in my spiritual journey. Be assured that if someone does overstep one of the Admins will take steps.
 
The following users thanked this post: LMAshton, Jen, dyany, Iggy, Roper, Sparky, Palmon, Hobbes, Taalcon

Grunt

  • Greenie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #100 on: January 08, 2019, 07:03:57 am »
So I share my personal feelings and experience on a matter and I get two personal attacks.  Nice.


Not a personal attack at all, sorry if you took it that way.  I was surprised you taught your children that the Church was wrong.  I then asked you to provide information that supports a statement you made.  I don't know much about anything, so when something is new to me and/or goes against something I believe I like to see the source so I can study it myself.   After all, that's how we convert.  Can you provide it?
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper

Taalcon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
  • Thanked: 595 times
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #101 on: January 08, 2019, 07:45:29 am »
Quote
The thinking was, and it is correct really, that the endowment is not of any benefit unless one is sealed. The blessings of the endowment are accessed through the sealing - eternal life.

Here's a key point where we may differ. I think each ordinance/covenant has a practical benefit for us here apart from whatever it might mean after we die. I don't even necessarily mean in a metaphysical way. Covenants as anchor points in our lives and as catalysts for revelation absolutely serve a benefit.

I actually have pondered that the ability to perform vicarious ordinances is more about asking us to act in charity and forgiveness and mercy, and those departed witnessing and recieving acts of charity (forgiveness?) towards them that has the most eternal significance.

In ancient Israel, the Israelites only had benefit of whatever Temple Ordinances were available to them as they were performed by the High Priest vicariously performing it for the nation, literally taking the names of the Tribes with him. Everyone in Israel needed to humble themselves to accept vicarious work on their behalf. Vicarious work isn't what's new, the subject of the vicarious work (the dead) and the participants in it (you and me!) is.

For me, in the Temple, men AND women take on the duties of the ancient Israelite High Priest , who himself we can see as representing the Savior. We all go to the Temple to reinact the Life of Christ (in many particulars), and learn in the process to extend mercy  to all - even those who may not have accepted it yet.

After all, Christ has already 'done the work' for all of us, we just need to learn to accept it. I think serving in the Temple helps this perpective.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 07:50:52 am by Taalcon »
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper, Palmon

AndrewR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 450
  • Thanked: 483 times
  • Country: gb
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #102 on: January 08, 2019, 08:50:33 am »
Quote
Here's a key point where we may differ.

We don't differ. I was saying what was the prevailing thinking. "No point taking on yourself covenants that without the sealing are not going to get you anywhere."

It is/was flawed as it didn't allow sisters who were not married, or married out of the covenant, to progress at all. To bind themselves more fully to Christ, to become Saviours on Mount Zion, to have the power that the endowment gives. So the policy has changed.
Don't ask me, I only live here.
Nauvoodle since March 2005 #1412
 
The following users thanked this post: Roper, Palmon, Taalcon

dyany

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 943
  • Thanked: 895 times
  • Country: us
    • View Profile
    • My blog
Re: Temple
« Reply #103 on: January 08, 2019, 09:29:01 pm »
I received my endowments at age 23, in late 1993, with no marriage or mission in sight, either.  I know that this was a RECENT CHANGE in policy at the time, both because I had looked into it before (and been told NO because I was not going on a mission nor engaged), AND because the bishop who suggested this told me the policy had RECENTLY CHANGED.  There was some dithering over the next few years, with women being allowed to get them for a time and then not (w/o mission/marriage prep), then allowed to again.  Whether or not you were allowed to do so depended on what window of time you tried to do it as well as how strictly your priesthood leader adhered to the policy.

We know from Christ's own words in Matthew 19 that there are aspects of the law (small L) through Moses that were not completely doctrinal, but were allowed to be adjusted because of the hardness of people's hearts.  Yet throughout the scriptures, the Lord repeatedly says listen to Moses, do what he told you, follow the law he gave you.  I feel there are a lot of reasons for this, none of which violate what I know about the Lord. 
1. If our hearts are hard, the Lord won't give us as much.  Not just because we are not worthy of it, but also (possibly more) because it would hold us accountable for things we don't have the capability of properly keeping.
2. The Lord speaks to man in his own language.  This doesn't just mean the words used, but the understanding that comes from culture and society as well.  There are things we are not currently capable of understanding because it is so vastly different from how we see the world on a very basic level.  The Lord doesn't fault us for that, he works with us where we are and helps us move forward as we are ready.
3. Sometimes, extra rules are there not because of the core rule, but because of our unwillingness to understand or work with a rule to meet the end goal.  For a real-world example, while working with an intellectually disabled client today, she asked me why they didn't allow food in the library, and said she thought it was a stupid rule.  I explained that the reason for the rule wasn't as much that food in the library was inherently bad, but that the library's primary role was to provide books and resources for the public, and food, when misused, could both cause problems with the primary role (by damaging books or equipment), and distract/take resources from the primary role (by requiring extra work to clean up after sloppy patrons and possibly pest control for food waste). 

Did I think that the endowments as they stood were wrong and evil?  No, even though they made me sad in my situation.  Can I understand and sympathize with those who never saw a problem with them?  Yes, especially because I saw them that way myself for a number of years.  Do I feel that the endowment ceremony as it stands now is 100% without error?  I can't answer that yes or no, because I feel it's far less concrete of a thing than many of us believe.  I do know that I am more comfortable with the changes.  But there may be others who still struggle with other aspects...and that may be indicative of a need for them to align a little better, or the ceremony details to align a little better; I don't know.  I am not in a position to judge that at all, either way.

All I know is that I believe that the church, because it is living, grows line upon line and precept upon precept and more perfect with effort, just like we do.  Because, while it's led by the Lord, it is made up of people.  And we are neither perfect nor ready for complete perfection, and that's why the Lord has the long, complicated process of life set up, rather than a 90 minute oral exam.  If there's stuff I don't understand now, I work on understanding.  Lots of understanding comes from obeying until you understand (it is through the doing that we learn most). Sometimes what we come to understand is that certain procedures may not be perfect, but we work to obey as our conscience allows and learn anyway.  I have found that if I am patient, diligent, careful, and as obedient as I can be, that one of 2 things usually happens: either I come to understand the reason behind the uncomfortable rule, or the uncomfortable rule is changed.  In this case, it was the latter.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 11:30:03 pm by dyany »
 
The following users thanked this post: Jen, Iggy, Roper, Sparky, Sarahgirl, Hobbes, Taalcon

Roper

  • Thousand Year Egg Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1484
  • Thanked: 1795 times
  • Country: us
  • Earning my spurs.
    • View Profile
Re: Temple
« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2019, 10:25:10 pm »
Joseph Smith taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." While that foundation remains constant, I expect all the appendages will change to continue to anchor people to the foundation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Jen, Scruffydog, dyany, Iggy, Sparky, Taalcon

 

* Top Posters

Curelom
1611 Posts
Roper Roper
1484 Posts
dyany dyany
943 Posts
LMAshton LMAshton
818 Posts
N3uroTypical N3uroTypical
618 Posts

* Recent Posts

Re: Current Events - US Politics Edition by pnr
[Today at 10:56:23 am]


Re: Current Events - US Politics Edition by pnr
[Today at 10:42:27 am]


Re: Current Events - US Politics Edition by Roper
[Today at 03:24:45 am]


Re: Gathering by Taalcon
[September 20, 2019, 12:03:07 pm]


Re: Gathering by AndrewR
[September 20, 2019, 10:58:56 am]

* Board Statistics

  • stats Total Members: 114
  • stats Total Posts: 13025
  • stats Total Topics: 808
  • stats Total Categories: 6
  • stats Total Boards: 26
  • stats Most Online: 65

  • averages Average Posts: 10
  • averages Average Topics: 1
  • averages Average Members: 0
  • averages Average Online: 20

* Forum Staff

AndrewR_admin admin AndrewR_admin
Administrator
dyany admin dyany
Administrator
LMAshton admin LMAshton
Administrator

* Calendar

September 2019
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 [21]
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

No calendar events were found.