Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Brigham did as well as he could. Condemning things he got wrong probably isn't that helpful. And many elements as I said really do reflect ancient rites even if we don't use them now. It's worth noting that Joseph, according to Brigham, told him things weren't correct.

  • "Bro[ther] Joseph [Smith] turned to me [Brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."  (Nuttall Journal, 7 Feb. 1877)

While some read that to mean Joseph hadn't yet made the changes Brigham did, I think that a better way of reading this is both feeling that you're trying to capture something but always fall somewhat short. That's especially true given that meaning of any performance or speech is always tied to culture. As culture shifts, sometimes we have to shift the text. I think we see that with the problems of members using the KJV of the Bible for instance. (Something I also suspect will change in my lifetime - and perhaps under Nelson)

Hopefully I didn't come off as condemning Brigham Young. I hold him in high esteem.

I was merely saying that Brigham Young defined the endowment as receiving all the ordinances which enable someone to pass by the sentinels which stand along the way to eternal life. He then further defined that as a set of components which must be given to them. I was just stating that to the best of my knowledge those components could be given by an endowed Latter-day Saint of any era.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see how this would be true, because being consistent in our language is almost always important.  But, I think you might be confusing being consistent with your language and believing that everyone's experience with the gospel is consistent with your experience.  You might not have ever had the experience of knowing that your sins have been forgiven.  However, if ksfisher actually does know that his sins have been forgiven, then it would be inconsistent for him to say that he only has faith or believes that they are.

You suggest that your manner of speaking about the gospel is the only way to be consistent but that seems more like your personal bias than actual fact.

I’ll re-read my words, but I thought I was clear that this is how I personally use my language (call that my bias if you’d like). Anyone can say anything they want however they want.

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

Share this post


Link to post

I gotta say this is why Pres. Nelson says to take your vitamins, because some of this is giving me a headache🤕

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I gotta say this is why Pres. Nelson says to take your vitamins, because some of this is giving me a headache🤕

Different kind of pills needed for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

You need to find a different language than English then.

"know" has at least 10 different variations:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/know

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I'm not placing limitations on experiential possibilities of spirit matter, God is.  Hence the need for all this proxy temple work right?  Notwithstanding Hebrews 9:24-26?  

That the Messiah atoned for all and replaced the Mosaic temple practices of atonement is not really in dispute is it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

And please drop the accusation that those of us using "I know" do so to avoid looking weak.  It is very offensive.  We have our own reasons for choosing language just as you do.

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, halconero said:

Different kind of pills needed for that.

I know, but my Dr. prescribed me pre natal pills for a problem I don't have, so I don't know any anymore!

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I seek complete consistency in my language as well. When I know something through personal experience, I say, 'I know ...' When I believe something but don't know it yet, I say, 'I believe ...' or even 'I hope ...' No one has ever told me I look weak, but I do take offence at some anonymous internet poster suggesting that I don't actually know what I in fact do.

Why take offense?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You need to find a different language than English then.

"know" has at least 10 different variations:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/know

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

But “believe” is too weak a word. I do not just believe there is a God. I know it. I am convinced of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Why take offense?

Because at the base of the statement, you're implicitly claiming that I'm not being 100 per cent truthful.

You do it again in your most recent post:

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts.

The things I know, I know to the same degree that I know literally anything else. When I say, 'I know', I mean it.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’ll re-read my words, but I thought I was clear that this is how I personally use my language (call that my bias if you’d like). Anyone can say anything they want however they want.

But, I’ll stick by my belief that it is easier to communicate when words have as consistent meanings as possible (although perfect consistency is nearly impossible).

I realize you were speaking about how you use words, but when you said "i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak" you were making a judgement on how other people use words at the same time.  You were implying that you use words to be consistent and other people use words so they don't look weak.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like Brant Gardner's explanation of the context, but it has been too long since I read it, I don't trust my summarizing.  Maybe will find it later.

Brant speculates that it may connect to some infant washing rituals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  As we're not 4th century Americans I'm not sure how we can understand what their concerns were or were not, except for what they expressed in the records they left behind. 

Fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Brant speculates that it may connect to some infant washing rituals.

Which is seemingly possible considering some of rituals we know the Native Americans practice. I doubt they used the word baptism, but the Lord/Joseph used the best words they had for us to understand the point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But “believe” is too weak a word. I do not just believe there is a God. I know it. I am convinced of it.

I fully respect that. But that’s you. If you really know.  Do you “know” the same way you “know” that you have a leg?  Or do you have another definition of “know” to describe that knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

my deepest apologies if you’re a paraplegic...

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because at the base of the statement, you're implicitly claiming that I'm not being 100 per cent truthful.

You do it again in your most recent post:

The things I know, I know to the same degree that I know literally anything else. When I say, 'I know', I mean it.

 

That’s awesome that you know!  But, kfisher indicated that he uses the same word for two meanings, which I think is a poor choice of words.

You seem to know that god exists just as much as you know you have blood inside you. If that’s your level of knowledge, then I think that’s 100% genuine.  Good for you!

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I realize you were speaking about how you use words, but when you said "i get it. I used to talk like you do. It’s the vocabulary Mormons are raised on. Faith isn’t enough at F&T meetings.  You have to say “I know” in our culture, or you look weak" you were making a judgement on how other people use words at the same time.  You were implying that you use words to be consistent and other people use words so they don't look weak.

You bring up a good point. To anyone who took offense, I apologize for generalizing my experience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Weak may have been a strong, hasty word in that context.

But my point that in the Mormon culture, we use the word “know” in faith settings where we usually don’t “know” to the same degree that we know physical/earthly facts. We use the word it because that it what we have been raised to say, or how we learn to state our faith after baptism.  It’s our language.

I’ve spoken with countless others about their faith and belief set. Mormons are the only ones I’ve met who use the word “know” where others use “believe.”

Isn't what you are doing (judging the quality of a member's spiritual experiences) what you don't like seeing members do of nonmembers?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I fully respect that. But that’s you. If you really know.  Do you “know” the same way you “know” that you have a leg?  Or do you have another definition of “know” to describe that knowledge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

my deepest apologies if you’re a paraplegic...

That's what I'm saying about the context informing the meaning of words. 

When I say that my daughter is practicing her violin and you say your doctor is practicing medicine, the context of the two statements defines what we understand the meaning of the word practice to be.  

Religion also uses words that are used in other walks of life, but within the context of that religion. 

No, I don't know that God exists in the same way that I know that I have a leg.  One I can see while the other I have to gather knowledge of through my spiritual experiences and the experiences of others. 

I both cases I feel honest in using the word know and I expect that others would understand the context of each statement just as you and I understand that practicing the violin and practicing medicine have different contextual meanings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn't what you are doing (judging the quality of a member's spiritual experiences) what you don't like seeing members do of nonmembers?

 

I’m not trying to judge the quality of anyone’s own personal experience. I’m advocating for a more clear explanation and understanding of the experiences they choose to share.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

And if you personally don't find it useful, makes sense not to use it.

But you shouldn't be judging most others who use it, imo, unless they have explained to you how they understand "know" and it is not consistent with their usage.

Communities develop their own jargon and languages changes over time.  Would you have argued against using "gay" as a term for homosexual among the gay community back in the day it wasn't in common usage as inconsistent or just seen it as them adapting the greater language for their community needs?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
    • By nuclearfuels
      Was chatting at Scouts last night - RIP and good riddance BSA - with an expert on Russia.
      Asked him 'bout the announced Temple in Russia; he thinks St. Petersburg; I don't know as I dont' study that country much,,,
      He said it could be 10+ years away like when Kiev Temple was announced
      Curious as to if Church HQ's legal team advised President Nelson or Bishop Davies to not announce the Russia Temple until a location had been selected and approved.  
      Laughed at the response to the lawyers: Thank you for your advice.  This meeting is over.
      -
      Curious as to what steps are in place before a Temple is announced (site acquisition, govt permitting approval, etc.)?
      Also I'd like to attend the dedication but not sure who would sponsor my Visa as a US passport won't get you in Russia, especially not after their recent laws regarding foreigners proselytizing? 
×