Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Which kind of changes it from the celestial room to something else.  Would there be a place for those who were dressed in temple robes to go? 

 

I don't see why the celestial room can't serve both purposes.  It does already, people stay in there and pray after a session.   I know of people who go directly to the celestial room to pray and who don't participate in an endowment session.  The only change I'm suggesting is a dress code change.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Signs, tokens and robes can all go away, that would cut 45 minutes at least

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Signs, tokens and robes can all go away, that would cut 45 minutes at least

And cost us a ton of symbolism. :( 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I like the idea of going to the temple to worship, without the explicit tie of ordinances.  I'm not currently attending the temple, but in times past I would attend for the specific purpose of wanting to pray and get answers to prayers.  I always participated in an ordinance, but honestly my focus was on my personal needs and not on the actual ordinance.  I just think this would be a nice thing for people to be able to do, and honestly I can't think of any substantive objections.  

Any reason why you would be opposed to allowing this change?  

Funny story- When an entire session is complete the celestial room fills up pretty quickly. There usually isn't enough seating for everyone...right? So I was sitting with my wife and an elderly woman came in. Naturally I let her have my seat and I knelt on the floor next to my wife as we were having a quiet conversation about the temple. I was surprised when a temple worker came over and asked me to stand. I stood and asked why she wanted me to stand. She told me they didn't permit kneeling in the Celestial Room. I was annoyed, but mostly intrigued so I asked why they didn't permit kneeling. She told me the reason was 2 fold. 1- They didn't want people making a spectacle of praying and 2- They wanted people to leave  the Celestial room semi-quickly. They didn't want people lingering. (not exactly what that has to do with kneeling, but whatever)

So the moral of the story is this... the temple is not a place of kneeling and praying...especially not the celestial room. (I kid...but only kind of)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Funny story- When an entire session is complete the celestial room fills up pretty quickly. There usually isn't enough seating for everyone...right? So I was sitting with my wife and an elderly woman came in. Naturally I let her have my seat and I knelt on the floor next to my wife as we were having a quiet conversation about the temple. I was surprised when a temple worker came over and asked me to stand. I stood and asked why she wanted me to stand. She told me they didn't permit kneeling in the Celestial Room. I was annoyed, but mostly intrigued so I asked why they didn't permit kneeling. She told me the reason was 2 fold. 1- They didn't want people making a spectacle of praying and 2- They wanted people to leave  the Celestial room semi-quickly. They didn't want people lingering. (not exactly what that has to do with kneeling, but whatever)

So the moral of the story is this... the temple is not a place of kneeling and praying...especially not the celestial room. (I kid...but only kind of)

Interesting, I have been there too when the celestial room is packed.  It wasn't really designed with the idea I have in mind, at least with the busier temples with 4-6 endowment rooms.  I think for the smaller temples with only one or two endowment rooms, they would have a lot less traffic in the celestial room.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So no standard for entering the Lord's house is what you'd like to see.

Do you view people as this binary?  Worthy and not?

Share this post


Link to post

I was endowed close to 30 years ago, so I have seen several changes made, always shortening and "simplifying."  When the symbolism is lost the meaning goes with it.  Under the pre-1990 ceremony,  there were details that you could see reflected in the scriptures.  There were passages that you could read in the Old Testament and get it - that person was actually getting their endowment.  The changes to the Initiatory were the same for me.  Before, they had actual meaning before.  Now its just someone standing there talking to you.  The meaning is lost.  I'm not sure that is the price I want to pay to make it more convenient.

As for going in just to pray or get revelation or for you own personal needs, maybe that's the whole point of requiring participation in the ceremony - it isn't always just about you - maybe you need to do something for someone else while you are trying to approach God.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Do you view people as this binary?  Worthy and not?

In the case of holding a temple recommend it is.  You either have one or you don't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Yes, I would like to see more emphasis on going to the temple to worship and pray and not having to perform ordinances specifically to do this.  Make it possible for people to go to the celestial room without having to dress in their temple robes specifically, so people can attend and pray and worship without that extra step being necessary. 

You can kinda sorta do this already. You do need to participate in an ordinance, but if you do, you're welcome to go into the Celestial Room so long as you're in white clothes. I went after doing initiatories the other day.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And lastly, I think everyone should be able to attend a temple sealing event, members and non-members alike.  This would be a huge win for the church and for families, and I continue to think it would also lead to new converts.  Win/win/win all around. 

I'm not sure on this one. The temple is a representation of heaven-on-earth, which requires taking upon ourselves certain ordinances.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

1.  I would welcome changes to the length.  But more important to me would be changes to the wording and theology to make it more egalitarian for women specifically. 

3.  Yes, I would like to see more emphasis on going to the temple to worship and pray and not having to perform ordinances specifically to do this.  Make it possible for people to go to the celestial room without having to dress in their temple robes specifically, so people can attend and pray and worship without that extra step being necessary. 

And lastly, I think everyone should be able to attend a temple sealing event, members and non-members alike.  This would be a huge win for the church and for families, and I continue to think it would also lead to new converts.  Win/win/win all around. 

Last time I was at the Palmyra NY temple my friend and I were permitted to go and sit in the celestial room in just our temple dresses after doing iniatories. 

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding changes: the only credible one I've heard is opening the temple on Sunday afternoons and evenings.

I'm not implying that yours aren't real possibilities, just that the only rumour that I've heard with any sort of "in-the-know" backing is that one.

On the nature of rumours, my guess is that some are bunk, while others are things the brethern discuss, ask some church department to run the numbers on, and which never see the light of day again - either because they're not feasible, not worthwhile, or because the Lord says "nope."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.

With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.

I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).

So, it makes sense to me that changes could come, as early as the next few weeks. So I've got a couple of questions.

1- Would you welcome changes to the length of time it takes to perform temple ordinances? (I call these efficiency changes)

2- Is the family history/temple approval system adequate for temple work to move forward in a faster way? IOW- will there be enough names (without duplication) to keep up a faster pace?

3- Are there other changes (besides efficiency) that you might expect to see?

*Please keep the discussion respectful, both to each other and also to the temple rituals. There are a couple of specific items/topics regarding temple worship that shouldn't be discussed.

As an ordinance worker, I've not heard anything about mandatory meetings in early January. Perhaps that is a regional thing.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In the case of holding a temple recommend it is.  You either have one or you don't. 

True.  But why not then relax the standards for having a temple recommend?  They’ve changed before, so why not again?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

True.  But why not then relax the standards for having a temple recommend?  They’ve changed before, so why not again?

Is there a need to relax them? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Funny story- When an entire session is complete the celestial room fills up pretty quickly. There usually isn't enough seating for everyone...right? So I was sitting with my wife and an elderly woman came in. Naturally I let her have my seat and I knelt on the floor next to my wife as we were having a quiet conversation about the temple. I was surprised when a temple worker came over and asked me to stand. I stood and asked why she wanted me to stand. She told me they didn't permit kneeling in the Celestial Room. I was annoyed, but mostly intrigued so I asked why they didn't permit kneeling. She told me the reason was 2 fold. 1- They didn't want people making a spectacle of praying and 2- They wanted people to leave  the Celestial room semi-quickly. They didn't want people lingering. (not exactly what that has to do with kneeling, but whatever)

So the moral of the story is this... the temple is not a place of kneeling and praying...especially not the celestial room. (I kid...but only kind of)

It really depends on the size of the Celestial Room. Some (Dallas) you can't swing a cat in) others (Orlando for example) you could (almost) hold a football game in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

True.  But why not then relax the standards for having a temple recommend?  They’ve changed before, so why not again?

 

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is there a need to relax them? 

I see some verbal legerdemain there. "Changed" does not equal "relaxed."

 

Share this post


Link to post

As long as the film doesn't evolve into the modern practise ,of jiggly camera work and half second flashes of stills .😎

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work.

Unless the length of a session is cut in half, where a person could do 2 sessions in the time of 1, people will likely only do one session per visit just like before.  So, I don't see how shortening the session by a half hour or so would really solve this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, halconero said:

You can kinda sorta do this already. You do need to participate in an ordinance, but if you do, you're welcome to go into the Celestial Room so long as you're in white clothes. I went after doing initiatories the other day.

I'm talking about going specifically to the temple to pray and not to participate in an ordinance, and not having to dress in the robes to enter into the Celestial room.  

51 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm not sure on this one. The temple is a representation of heaven-on-earth, which requires taking upon ourselves certain ordinances.

I believe Heaven will contain a multitude of different peoples and I think Mormon theology is compatible with this.   The people participating in the ordinance would still need to have a recommend, I'm just talking about the people observing the ordinance and supporting them.  I believe there is historical precedent if I'm not mistaken for non-members in the community attending the Kirtland dedication.  The temples didn't start out as secretive as they later evolved into being. 

The reasons the Nauvoo period was shrouded in secrecy can be directly attributed to polygamy and Joseph's attempts to keep all of that very secret and the connections to Masonry as a mechanism of keeping it secret.  But we've started to shed much of the original Masonic imagery as the temple rituals have evolved and as modern members are less comfortable with those kinds of rituals.  You can even see that Mormons are more comfortable with the temple clothing as we've posted pictures of it online.  It seems to me that this step would be compatible with a continued evolution in this direction, and it honestly seems like such a positive move for the church I can't imagine any orthodox members even pushing back on this.  If President Nelson stood up at the next GC and announced this change I would be surprised if even one orthodox person on this message board would complain about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is there a need to relax them? 

I don’t think so. Maybe some clarification at some points.

But, if the brethren want to relax them, that’s their prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I see some verbal legerdemain there. "Changed" does not equal "relaxed."

 

No - it doesn’t. Some people might see some changes as relaxed. Some not. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Unless the length of a session is cut in half, where a person could do 2 sessions in the time of 1, people will likely only do one session per visit just like before.  So, I don't see how shortening the session by a half hour or so would really solve this problem.

I think it could easily be cut in half. I think it could be cut down to 20 minutes.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, I was wondering about the new films as well. It seems unlikely to me (but what do I know) that they would totally get rid of those. I wonder, for example, if they may have different versions of the endowment. A longer one for those who like it and/or for those going through for the first time. Then, giving people the option of doing a quicker version for people doing work for the dead. (Do the deceased need me to re-watch a film- or simply accept covenants on their behalf?) I can think of a plausible way in which all covenants could be explained and accepted before going right to the veil. Like SouthernMO I think it would be super interesting to learn more about the celestial kingdom as that is the desired end-destination.........................

We have had a shortening of the endowment liturgy in the past (specific items removed), and things could be speeded up quite a bit, but that might influence the meditative meaning which we take away from the experience.  Depends on the overall objectives as perceived by the Brethren.

The orthodox Jewish community has a long and complex Sabbath liturgy, but they deal with it by running through it at high speed.  Beginners can easily get lost.  I frankly have a very hard time keeping up.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it could easily be cut in half. I think it could be cut down to 20 minutes.

 

At 20 minutes it would seem like most of the teaching would be lost. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As an ordinance worker, I've not heard anything about mandatory meetings in early January.

Same. I’ve received two emails from the temple in the last week, I was there last night, and I’ll be working my shift tomorrow morning. We’re altering session start times here. Everything else is just rumour. 

  • Like 1

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? 
×
×
  • Create New...