129 replies to this topic

[Tacenda]

I was thinking of the challenge it may be to people if they discover that D&C 132, is a commandment for polygamy vs. commandment for celestial marriage without polgamy.  Before my temple marriage I wasn't told about the commandment in the D&C.  Would it be smart to prepare those entering into this covenant to be aware of the commitment they're making?  Or has this doctrine been put to the side until one is ready for that understanding until the hereafter?

[CV75]

Tacenda, on 19 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

I was thinking of the challenge it may be to people if they discover that D&C 132, is a commandment for polygamy vs. commandment for celestial marriage without polgamy.  Before my temple marriage I wasn't told about the commandment in the D&C.  Would it be smart to prepare those entering into this covenant to be aware of the commitment they're making?  Or has this doctrine been put to the side until one is ready for that understanding until the hereafter?

What is your understanding of what you are being commanded to do?

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure what temple prep has to do with polygamy.

[Garden Girl]

Tacenda, on 19 July 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

I was thinking of the challenge it may be to people if they discover that D&C 132, is a commandment for polygamy vs. commandment for celestial marriage without polgamy. Before my temple marriage I wasn't told about the commandment in the D&C. Would it be smart to prepare those entering into this covenant to be aware of the commitment they're making?  Or has this doctrine been put to the side until one is ready for that understanding until the hereafter?

With all due respect, Tacenda, you surprise me sometimes with your lack of understanding and knowledge of the gospel that you exhibit in your posts... you didn't know about this, you didn't know about that, etc etc... I can't remember if you're a convert, but you mean to say you never read the D&C in all the years prior to your marriage, particularly if you were an investigator/convert.  I would think you would have at least glanced through each of the D&C sections, particularly Section 132 since it clearly would be something of interest...

GG

[Tacenda]

mfbukowski, on 19 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

I am not sure what temple prep has to do with polygamy.

In analysing word for word the D&C 132 (after commenting on another thread) it became very clear to me that polygamy is part of celestial marriage and if not practiced, one would go to "angel" status.  That made me ask if enough people understand that when reading this section, before marrying in the temple.

[Tacenda]

Garden Girl, on 19 July 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

With all due respect, Tacenda, you surprise me sometimes with your lack of understanding and knowledge of the gospel that you exhibit in your posts... you didn't know about this, you didn't know about that, etc etc... I can't remember if you're a convert, but you mean to say you never read the D&C in all the years prior to your marriage, particularly if you were an investigator/convert.  I would think you would have at least glanced through each of the D&C sections, particularly Section 132 since it clearly would be something of interest...

GG

Born in the covenant, active from day one, except for a rebellious time in my youth, yada, yada...you've heard it before.  But not one time (my family wasn't good at scripture reading, semi-active father) did I read thoroughly section132.   Also, served in the Primary most of my adult life.  I know that doesn't give me any kind of excuse.  I don't want this to be a battle Selek1.  Maybe this topic might need to go down the rabbit hole because it may serve to be an achilles' heel.

[rameumptom]

Tacenda, you are misreading D&C 132.  Polygamy is not required, except where the Lord requires.  The prophet Jacob noted that monogamy is the Lord's standard, unless he commands otherwise.  Exaltation does not require polygamy, otherwise the last several presidents of the LDS Church would only be worthy of angel status.  Nope, we are told that exaltation comes through the sealing of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  There is no requirement for multiple marriages prior to exaltation.

[ERayR]

Tacenda, on 19 July 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

In analysing word for word the D&C 132 (after commenting on another thread) it became very clear to me that polygamy is part of celestial marriage and if not practiced, one would go to "angel" status.  That made me ask if enough people understand that when reading this section, before marrying in the temple.

Where do you get that it is mandatory?

[Tacenda]

rameumptom, on 19 July 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Tacenda, you are misreading D&C 132.  Polygamy is not required, except where the Lord requires.  The prophet Jacob noted that monogamy is the Lord's standard, unless he commands otherwise.  Exaltation does not require polygamy, otherwise the last several presidents of the LDS Church would only be worthy of angel status.  Nope, we are told that exaltation comes through the sealing of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  There is no requirement for multiple marriages prior to exaltation.

Thanks for that answer, I'm a person that has to be told something over and over again (my husband can vouch).  But still confused a bit.  I was of the understanding that it isn't commanded in this life, but isn't it in the next?  As per your statement of the many presidents of the LDS church. Ok, it just hit me, so it is in the hereafter where we may be chosen to live this commandment if the Lord God sees fit?  I see now where you are saying we are not commiting to do so when going through the temple.  Thanks!

[Garden Girl]

Tacenda, on 19 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Born in the covenant, active from day one, except for a rebellious time in my youth, yada, yada...you've heard it before.  But not one time (my family wasn't good at scripture reading, semi-active father) did I read thoroughly section132.   Also, served in the Primary most of my adult life.  I know that doesn't give me any kind of excuse.  I don't want this to be a battle Selek1.  Maybe this topic might need to go down the rabbit hole because it may serve to be an achilles' heel.

rameumptom, on 19 July 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Tacenda, you are misreading D&C 132.  Polygamy is not required, except where the Lord requires.  The prophet Jacob noted that monogamy is the Lord's standard, unless he commands otherwise.  Exaltation does not require polygamy, otherwise the last several presidents of the LDS Church would only be worthy of angel status.  Nope, we are told that exaltation comes through the sealing of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.  There is no requirement for multiple marriages prior to exaltation.

I agree... Verses 1-7 reveals the law of the "new and everlasting covenant" and speaks of the blessings and conditions of that law: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is annointed,....are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

Subsequent verses detail the conditions for plurality of wives...

Then, in Verse 61:  "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood -- if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have not vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and no one else."

Think of all the monogamous temple marriages, sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, that have taken place since the 1890's... there is no requirement for plurality...

GG

Edited by Garden Girl, 19 July 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[rongo]

I think it's inadequate, but not because of anything having to do with polygamy, D&C 132, etc. I once complained to the stake presidency about its inadequacy because a recent convert sister had been "weirded out" when receiving her own endowment. I was told that I am the gatekeeper, and it's my job to properly prepare people, not the class's. Since then, I have had a detailed, involved talk with people before issuing a recommend for living ordinances (while still not discussing things I have covenanted not to, of course). There is an awful lot that *can* be discussed that will help people have proper expectations and "head off at the pass" potential concerns.

I explain that we participate in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama covers the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Restoration ----- and everything that we do fits within this general overview. We make covenants within this ---- covenants which are not new; they are all in the scriptures. We wear symbolic clothing that is also scriptural. Many of the symbols have personal meaning that varies with each individual and they are the work of a lifetime and frequent temple worship to derive personal meaning. Etc., etc.

This sister is actually now our newly-called Relief Society president, and is doing very, very well (she previously served in two young women's presidencies).

[Tacenda]

rongo, on 19 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think it's inadequate, but not because of anything having to do with polygamy, D&C 132, etc. I once complained to the stake presidency about its inadequacy because a recent convert sister had been "weirded out" when receiving her own endowment. I was told that I am the gatekeeper, and it's my job to properly prepare people, not the class's. Since then, I have had a detailed, involved talk with people before issuing a recommend for living ordinances (while still not discussing things I have covenanted not to, of course). There is an awful lot that *can* be discussed that will help people have proper expectations and "head off at the pass" potential concerns.

I explain that we participate in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama covers the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Restoration ----- and everything that we do fits within this general overview. We make covenants within this ---- covenants which are not new; they are all in the scriptures. We wear symbolic clothing that is also scriptural. Many of the symbols have personal meaning that varies with each individual and they are the work of a lifetime and frequent temple worship to derive personal meaning. Etc., etc.

This sister is actually now our newly-called Relief Society president, and is doing very, very well (she previously served in two young women's presidencies).

Good for you, I hope more that teach this prep class, will follow your example.  I've read many boards where people have been "weirded out" as you said this woman was.  And some have never returned to the temple.  As long as those that teach the class stay within the bounds, I think more can be discussed of the experience they are going to have.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I am not sure what temple prep has to do with polygamy.

Me too.  However, having taught the class, I would agree it (the manual/cirriculum) is seriously lacking in actual preparation.

[Duncan]

I guess it depends on who is teaching it

[Zakuska]

rongo, on 19 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think it's inadequate, but not because of anything having to do with polygamy, D&C 132, etc. I once complained to the stake presidency about its inadequacy because a recent convert sister had been "weirded out" when receiving her own endowment. I was told that I am the gatekeeper, and it's my job to properly prepare people, not the class's. Since then, I have had a detailed, involved talk with people before issuing a recommend for living ordinances (while still not discussing things I have covenanted not to, of course). There is an awful lot that *can* be discussed that will help people have proper expectations and "head off at the pass" potential concerns.

I explain that we participate in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama covers the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Restoration ----- and everything that we do fits within this general overview. We make covenants within this ---- covenants which are not new; they are all in the scriptures. We wear symbolic clothing that is also scriptural. Many of the symbols have personal meaning that varies with each individual and they are the work of a lifetime and frequent temple worship to derive personal meaning. Etc., etc.

This sister is actually now our newly-called Relief Society president, and is doing very, very well (she previously served in two young women's presidencies).

From my understanding there are really only two parts of the endowment that we covenant not to reveal. And Adam Identifies one of them himself.  The rest is ALL in the scriptures and IMHO is fair game.  Others seem to take a hard line/fundamentalist approach and won't speak about ANYTHING that goes on in the Temple outside the temple.

But ask yourself this.

What was Christ teaching his followers as they sat in the parking lot of the Jerusalem temple?  He was speaking about the goings on inside the Temple of course.

Now, don't get me wrong, an Internet Message Board probably isn't the place to be talking about the sacred goings on in the temple.  But a temple Prep class that takes place in a ward house... (ie an extension of the temple) is an appropriate time and place, as long as they don't reveal the two things they covenanted not to.

Edited by Zakuska, 19 July 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Bernard Gui]

rongo, on 19 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think it's inadequate, but not because of anything having to do with polygamy, D&C 132, etc. I once complained to the stake presidency about its inadequacy because a recent convert sister had been "weirded out" when receiving her own endowment. I was told that I am the gatekeeper, and it's my job to properly prepare people, not the class's. Since then, I have had a detailed, involved talk with people before issuing a recommend for living ordinances (while still not discussing things I have covenanted not to, of course). There is an awful lot that *can* be discussed that will help people have proper expectations and "head off at the pass" potential concerns.

I explain that we participate in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama covers the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Restoration ----- and everything that we do fits within this general overview. We make covenants within this ---- covenants which are not new; they are all in the scriptures. We wear symbolic clothing that is also scriptural. Many of the symbols have personal meaning that varies with each individual and they are the work of a lifetime and frequent temple worship to derive personal meaning. Etc., etc.

This sister is actually now our newly-called Relief Society president, and is doing very, very well (she previously served in two young women's presidencies).

Amen and amen.

[wenglund]

I grew up in an era when there was no temple prep classes. Those members who now attend temple prep are far more prepared than I was. Even still, my lack of preparation didn't result in much if any of a problem, and so I can't see why additional preparation would be a problem--even if the additional preparation doesn't fulfill everyone's expectations (some overly high). I am still as able as other members to progress in faith unto Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

wenglund, on 19 July 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I grew up in an era when there was no temple prep classes.

Ditto, and quite frankly the first time I went I was so tired I didn't know what was going on anyway.

Tacenda, you need to get off the plural marriage kick. Even assuming some will live it, do you really think that the attitudes and jealousies you have here will even play any part there?

[Freedom]

I have people read Exodus Chapter 29 and show them pictures depicting the outfit warn by High Priests in the Old Testament. I then say the Lord is the same yesterday and today. There is no need to describe what is done today, just show what was done in the past and point out that the ordinances have never changed. The depictions on the internet are, of course, assumptions based on what little is provided in the text, but chapter 29 clearly describes garments that are familiar to us today.

Quote

4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the ^adoor of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt ^bwash them with water.
garments, and put upon Aaron the^bcoat, and the robe of the ^cephod, and the ephod (sash), and the breastplate, and gird him with the ^dcurious girdle of the ephod:
mitre (flat round cap) upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre (this helps us understand a bit more of why a flat cap is warn).
anointing oil (Change of order), and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.
9 And thou shalt ^agird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and^bput the bonnets on them: and the ^cpriest’s office shall be theirs for a perpetual ^dstatute: and thou shalt ^econsecrate Aaron and his sons.

offering throughout your generations at the door of the ^btabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to ^cspeak there unto thee.
meet with the children of Israel, and the^btabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.

If you read Nibley, as published in the ensign, you will learn that they approached the veil wearing their priestly clothes, embrace the lord at the veil, and enter in to sit with Him in heaven, or in our terminology, the celestial room.

People keep freaking out about our mysterious practices, but if they would just read Exodus and Leviticus, they would not have to sneak cameras into the temple. Everything we do in the temple is published by the church, you just have to be willing to read.

[Scott Lloyd]

Tacenda, on 19 July 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

In analysing word for word the D&C 132 (after commenting on another thread) it became very clear to me that polygamy is part of celestial marriage and if not practiced, one would go to "angel" status.  That made me ask if enough people understand that when reading this section, before marrying in the temple.

Having been a contributor in that other thread, I will here comment that Doctrine and Covenants 132 needs to be read and understood in historical context. The portions pertaining to celestial marriage, the New and Everlasting Covenant, sealing for time and all eternity, still apply today.

The principle of plurality of wives falls under the doctrine of celestial marriage but is applicable only when the Lord commands that it be practiced (see Jacob 2:30 in the Book of Mormon). At the time Joseph received this revelation, he and his associates were under commandment to practice plural marriage; that's why the principle was included in the revelation. But since the issuance of the Manifesto by Wilford Woodruff in 1890, the commandment regarding plurality of wives has been rescinded (for good, I hope).

Therefore, Latter-day Saints in our day need have no fear about being required to live this principle in order to attain exaltation.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 19 July 2012 - 12:03 PM.