How Did Change In Temple Ceremony Come About?

[hokuman]

Hammer

post Today, 10:11 AM

Post #11

Brings Forth Plants

*****

Group: Members

Posts: 4455

Joined: 22-September 06

Member No.: 3833

QUOTE(hokuman @ Sep 9 2007, 05:40 AM) *

Did it start with the desire of the First Presidency then prayer. Or...was there a revelation out of the blue.

SNIP, I hope it won't get edited.

Play nice

Your hope was in vein. Temple content, past or present, is not allowed on this board. And although you apparently knew this before you posted temple content (hence your comment "I hope it won't get edited"), we won't ding you this time. But don't do it again. =Mods.

You are wrong . I was not sure if It was ok or not. I thought if not, then it would get edited--which would have been fine by me. It is your site. I was hoping it wouldn't. I did not know past, unused, discarded temple content was not allowed.

Heil, play nice.

[Deborah]

To state again what has been stated on other threads on this subject, the heart of the temple ceremony itself is not changed when we are talking about signs and symbols and covenants. Only how those things were presented. Think of a major motion picture. The good movies are carefully edited. I think the editing in the presentation of the temple covenants made for a better movie so to speak. There was much that was surplus and better suited to a generation that was into more eloquent and flowery presentations. Some of the language changed to fit the times and the influences of the day. But once again the covenants and signs needed for exaltation as currently presented are what we need to focus on, not all the little differences on how those things are presented.

[hokuman]

To state again what has been stated on other threads on this subject, the heart of the temple ceremony itself is not changed when we are talking about signs and symbols and covenants. Only how those things were presented. Think of a major motion picture. The good movies are carefully edited. I think the editing in the presentation of the temple covenants made for a better movie so to speak. There was much that was surplus and better suited to a generation that was into more eloquent and flowery presentations. Some of the language changed to fit the times and the influences of the day. But once again the covenants and signs needed for exaltation as currently presented are what we need to focus on, not all the little differences on how those things are presented.

Thank you. I never questioned the change. Liked it, but the old way was ok with me too. Every once in a while, while in the temple, I'd get a flashback on the old way and wonder HOW it went down. Never heard the story, maybe thought one was out there. Maybe it was a good one. Maybe even faith promoting.

If there is no official story, because it has to do with the temple, I am good with that.

All I am getting is guess work--and good ones on WHY. The popular one is the one you mentioned on meeting the needs of the present generation. Sounds good.

Later

[JNclone]

QUOTE(JNclone @ Sep 9 2007, 09:20 AM) *

As I think G.K. Chesterton pointed out, one of the most striking features of the Western Latin rite is that its most sacred ritual acts are entirely open and public. And yet congregations attending mass have been in no doubt that what they were participating in was an act that is as sacred as any act can get. Where is the 'element of secrecy' here?

Juliann:

You are entirely missing the point and this is what always happens when you come at things in an attempt to destroy rather than understand. Do you really not think there is an "element of secrecy" in a mass? Hint: It would be the part that you make fun of. Do you know the history of the mass? Further, one example does not negate the principle. You are trying to nitpick over how secret something is...not the element of secrecy.

So what part of the mass is secret then? I am sorry to press the question so crudely, but (who knows?) there may be others as well as me who are too dense to follow your hint.

QUOTE (JNclone @ Sep 9 2007, 09:20 AM) *

It would seem that, contrary to Juliann's asertion, the sacred can manage to be acknowledged as such without any secrecy at all.

Juliann

The sacred is experienced not "acknowledged". Your doublespeak aside, when the secret experience is turned into a "public and open" acknowledgement it is profane. You might as well go to a bank.

Really, that deserves a yawn ... and from a lady who has just complained about 'nitpicking'! So OK, I shall rephrase: "contrary to Juliann's asertion, the sacred can manage to be acknowledged experienced as such without any secrecy at all". Happy now?

QUOTE (JNclone @ Sep 9 2007, 09:20 AM) *

In fact, I am trying to think of any major modern religion practiced in developed countries apart from the CoJCoLDS in which believers are invited to participate in acts which are held in secrecy to the extent that even initiates into those acts may not discuss them with other initiates outside the sacred space in which alone they may be performed.

Juliann:

I notice that even you know you have to stick modern and developed countries in there to keep this up. Nothing else matters...especially those primitive heathens in those other places, eh?

Yup, I am happy to deal with people in the more advanced parts of the world ... but if you want to cast your net more broadly, what parallels to LDS Temple secrecy would you like to adduce from elsewhere in the modern world?

[ERMD]

Thank you. I never questioned the change. Liked it, but the old way was ok with me too. Every once in a while, while in the temple, I'd get a flashback on the old way and wonder HOW it went down. Never heard the story, maybe thought one was out there. Maybe it was a good one. Maybe even faith promoting.

If there is no official story, because it has to do with the temple, I am good with that.

All I am getting is guess work--and good ones on WHY. The popular one is the one you mentioned on meeting the needs of the present generation. Sounds good.

Later

Several years ago Elder Richard G. Scott was the presiding authority at our Stake Conference. During the Priesthood session, he opened up the floor for questions. I asked why the presentation of the endowment had been changed. He would only say that it was deemed necessary.

[juliann]

QUOTE(JNclone @ Sep 9 2007, 09:20 AM) *

Yup, I am happy to deal with people in the more advanced parts of the world ... but if you want to cast your net more broadly, what parallels to LDS Temple secrecy would you like to adduce from elsewhere in the modern world?

I'm not going to play your "modern" game in a restorationist church. Who do you think you are fooling with such a clumsy attempt to limit the scope of the discussion to what suits your agenda? Then tell me, in great detail, the public inner experience a partaker of the mass goes through. In great detail. Then explain to me and all of the scholars throughout time what went on in the first and second temple Holy of Holies.

[Son]

I believe you have judge rashly. Hopefully you will see the error of your ways.

Where is the error in those statements?

When we try to explain away the to and fro, and every wind of "doctrine" that changes, thinking that God is changing and that man heard the message perfectly every time. We will be cursed by the trusting rather than blessed by the Spirit.

I know my errors, do the leaders know theirs?

[JNclone]

I'm not going to play your "modern" game in a restorationist church. Who do you think you are fooling with such a clumsy attempt to limit the scope of the discussion to what suits your agenda? Then tell me, in great detail, the public inner experience a partaker of the mass goes through. In great detail. Then explain to me and all of the scholars throughout time what went on in the first and second temple Holy of Holies.

OK Juliann, whatever you say ... I'll just tiptoe away now, and leave you turning in the wind.

[Deborah]

Every once in a while, while in the temple, I'd get a flashback on the old way and wonder HOW it went down.

I have found myself thinking about this as well. I think that the changes in the temple presentation were probably done in one or two temples to begin with. Usually this is how the church puts out new procedures(not doctrine, but procedures). For example back in the 70's when gas rationing was a reality we were still on the 2 meetings on Sunday schedule. We soon went to the three hour block. Before that happened however, there were stakes that were already trying this. In other words the church leaders look at these things very carefully and don't put it out to the whole church until they try it in limited areas to make sure it will work and that it is a viable program. People are always reluctant to change and I do think the leaders consider how change will affect them, even if it's for the better. Mormons like anyone else like their traditions and some people getting very put off by any changes. I'm still waiting for the two hour block instead of the three hour block!!

[Garden Girl]

And Deborah, I'm hoping we retain the 3-hour block... we hardly have time for a meaningful lesson and discussion by time we transition from Sacrament Mtg to Sunday School and then from SS to RS. To cut the times any more short and it's almost like why bother.

But then, that's just me....

Smac... yes, thank you for the background on early Christian practice...

Garden Girl

[Deborah]

And Deborah, I'm hoping we retain the 3-hour block... we hardly have time for a meaningful lesson and discussion by time we transition from Sacrament Mtg to Sunday School and then from SS to RS.

Yeah, theyd have to cancel one or the other of SS or RS. I don't think it will happens soon, but I know for Primary 3 hours is a long time.

[bjw]

I was always under the impression that our temple ceremony was changed because parts were exposed to the public in a "mocking" fashion in the Godmakers, Temple of Doom, and other "expose" movies made by anti-mormons. I know what the changes were and will not mention them here to keep them sacred, but I think the elements in a sense are still "there," just in different wording and form.

As to answering the question posed by the thread, it seems like I saw on BYU-TV a member of the church's temple committee or something, and that the church has a council of men that are appointed just to manage temple issues. (Someone correct me if I have the wrong idea.)

[Hammer]

Hammer

post Today, 10:11 AM

Post #11

Brings Forth Plants

*****

Group: Members

Posts: 4455

Joined: 22-September 06

Member No.: 3833

QUOTE(hokuman @ Sep 9 2007, 05:40 AM) *

Did it start with the desire of the First Presidency then prayer. Or...was there a revelation out of the blue.

SNIP, I hope it won't get edited.

Play nice

Your hope was in vein. Temple content, past or present, is not allowed on this board. And although you apparently knew this before you posted temple content (hence your comment "I hope it won't get edited"), we won't ding you this time. But don't do it again. =Mods.

You are wrong . I was not sure if It was ok or not. I thought if not, then it would get edited--which would have been fine by me. It is your site. I was hoping it wouldn't. I did not know past, unused, discarded temple content was not allowed.

Heil, play nice.

?

[juliann]

OK Juliann, whatever you say ... I'll just tiptoe away now, and leave you turning in the wind.

It is just a coincidence that you are running when you are asked to support your nonsense.

[kamenraider]

Here's what Jerald and Sandra Tanner wrote about it in the July 1990 issue of their Salt Lake City Messenger:

[p.s. I don't agree with everyting they had to say (such as their disbelief in LDS leaders receiving revelation) but do agree with their assessment of what led to changes being contemplated.]

Although the Mormon Church completely lost control of the situation and had no way to stop the tens of thousands of copies of the endowment which were being distributed throughout the world, most members of the church who felt there was something wrong with the ritual did not dare to openly protest. They feared that they would be strongly reprimanded or even excommunicated if they raised their voices on the issue. In 1987, however, a remarkably frank article by David John Buerger was printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a liberal Mormon publication which is not controlled by the church. In this article, Buerger acknowledged that there were "strong indications that Joseph Smith drew on the Masonic rites in shaping the temple endowment, and specifically borrowed ...[snip -- edited by kamenraider]." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1987, p. 45)

Mr. Buerger went even further by suggesting that church leaders needed to seriously consider making changes in the ceremony to counter declining rates of attendance at endowment ceremonies:

"The number of operating temples has increased dramatically... An analysis of ordinance data, however, suggests that rates of temple work have remained relatively constant over the last fifteen years.... Members of my own stake made 2,671 visits to the Oakland Temple in 1985, versus 3,340 visits in 1984 â?? a 20 percent drop in activity.... Without comparing the policies of stakes in other temple districts, it is impossible to say how characteristic my stake might be.

"These declining rates suggest that many Latter-day Saints apparently do not participate extensively in either vicarious or living endowments. The need for reevaluation can at least be discussed. As the history of the endowment shows, specific content and procedural alterations were made in 1845, 1877, 1883, 1893, 1919-27, the early 1960s, and 1968-72....

"The feelings contemporary Saints have for the temple certainly merit a careful quantitative analysis by professional social scientists. I have heard a number of themes from people who feel discomfort in one degree or another with elements of the temple ceremony.... Probably in no other settings except college organizations, with their attendant associations of youthfulness and possibly immaturity, do most Mormons encounter 'secret' ceremonies with ...[snip -- edited by kamenraider]. Various individuals have commented on their difficulty in seeing these elements as 'religious' or 'inspirational,' originating in the desires of a loving Father for his children.... some are also uncomfortable at the portrayal of...[snip -- edited by kamenraider]

"Sixth, the endowment ceremony still depicts women as [snip -- edited by kamenraider]... Some find the temple irrelevant to the deeper currents of their Christian service and worship of God. Some admit to boredom. Others describe their motivations for continued and regular temple attendance as feelings of hope and patience â?? the faith that by continuing to participate they will develop more positive feelings... Often they feel unworthy or guilty because of these feelings since the temple is so unanimously presented as the pinnacle of spiritual experience for sincere Latter-day Saints.... The endowment has changed a great deal in response to community needs over time. Obviously it has the capability of changing still further if the need arises.... From a strictly functional perspective, the amount of time required to complete a vicarious endowment seems excessive." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1987, p. 63, 66-69)

The reader will notice that David John Buerger felt there should be a "careful quantitative analysis by professional social scientists" to find out why attendance at temples has been declining. Although it could have been just a coincidence, it is interesting to note that within months of the publication of Buerger's article, the Mormon Church made its own survey of the opinions of members concerning temple work. In the Instructions for the Survey of Adult Members in the United States and Canada, the following appears: "...we have developed this survey to help us understand your thoughts, feelings, and experiences relating to temple and genealogy activities.... along with you, approximately 3,400 other members in the United States and Canada are being asked to participate in this project.... We hope that you will feel you can be candid and open in your answers.... what you write will be anonymous. We will not be able to associate your name with the questionnaire you complete." This survey was to be returned in the mail "by MARCH 30th," 1988.

Although Question 28 asked the person who had been through the endowment ritual if he or she "felt spiritually uplifted by the experience," it also probed to find out if the "experience was unpleasant" or if the person "was confused by what happened. Q. 29 is worded, "Briefly describe how you felt after receiving your own endowment." On the photocopy we have in our possession, the respondent has written: "Wierd [sic]." Q. 37-k inquired as to whether the person found "it hard to go to the temple." Q. 39-b asked if the individual fell "asleep during sessions." Questions were also asked concerning whether the person really believed "The president of the LDS Church is a prophet of God," or if "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the earth." (Q. 70a- b ) There was also a question with regard to whether there were any "doubts about specific LDS doctrines and teachings." (Q. 77-g) A page at the end of the Survey was left blank in case the person had "any additional things to write about your feelings or activities in temple or genealogical work..."

Although our photocopy of the page containing the "Comments" is faded out and difficult to read, it appears that the woman who filled out the Survey admitted she had lost faith in the church. This is supported by her answers to Questions 77 and 78. The "main reason for not attending LDS church services" was listed as: "I have some doubts about specific LDS doctrines and teachings." From all appearances it appears that the Mormon Church's Survey was a feeler to find out what changes should be made in the ceremony and how they would be received by members of the church.

While many Mormons will undoubtedly stand firm in their faith that the decision to change the ceremonies came by direct revelation from God, the evidence seems to indicate that the publication of the temple ceremony and objections to it by non-Mormons combined with criticism from within the church (as evidenced by David John Buerger's article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought) forced the Mormon leaders to issue a survey to find out why temple attendance had fallen off and what members of the church actually felt about the endowment ceremony. The results of that survey must have indicated that a significant number of people were offended by parts of the ceremony. Consequently, a new "revelation" was given to make the ritual more appealing to the Mormon people. This tends to verify the formula that the criticism of a specific doctrine or practice from without the church + acceptance of that criticism by Mormon scholars and prominent people = "Revelation."

In the early days of the Mormon Church, the word "revelation" had a very different meaning than it does today. Joseph Smith often used the word to refer to some new doctrine or teaching which he claimed God himself had revealed to him. Some of his "revelations" were extremely unpopular, but this usually did not bother him very much. Take, for instance, his "revelation" concerning polygamy. In spite of the fact that many members of the church were violently opposed to the doctrine, he continued to secretly advocate the practice and to take plural wives himself. Unlike the current leaders of the church, he did not feel that it was necessary to take a survey and modify the doctrine to fit the opinions of others. While we do not believe that the "revelation" on polygamy came from God and are very opposed to the practice, we must admit that Smith was not easily swayed by public opinion.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

One Element that I always failed to understand is why "secrecy" was associated with God's only true ceremony.

I mean, you do not spread "the Gospel" with secrecy. You'd want everybody "know" and

"partake" the blessings.

I haven't received a single convincing answer so far.

In a way it is like asking to a Born again to explain "Trinity".

Matthew 13: 10-11

10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Never heard of this have ya? Jesus was big on secrets. But as someone has already stated "sacred not secret".

Pa pa

[cinepro]

Did it start with the desire of the First Presidency then prayer. Or...was there a revelation out of the blue.

As far as I know, David Buerger's book "The Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship" is the gold standard for information regarding the history of the latter day Temple ceremonies (it seems to be LDS safe as well, with no quotations or descriptive references to the actual ceremonies beyond what has also been described publicly in LDS-approved materials).

Here is what he says about the 1990 changes:

The most recent modifications to the temple ceremony occurred in April 1990. Following several in-house studies, including a national survey of some 3,400 members, a number of changes was implemented to soften the ritual's treatment of women, non-Mormon clergy, use of Masonic elements, and violence of the penalties.

While correlation doesn't mean causation, the timing of the national survey would certainly suggest that revelation concerning Temple changes can be influenced by the feelings and attitudes of the members of the Church.

(Note: the book was published in 1994, so it doesn't mention the 2005 initiatory changes.)

And say what you will about "changes", I think we can all be grateful for endowment sessions that aren't 3 hours long, clothed initiatories, and knee/elbow length garments without collars.

[Obiwan]

Thank you for the link, but I already realized that things change and I accept that. I really do not want to talk details of the ceremony itself. I still am curious as how it started. To me, it was just as big a deal as the revelation of the blacks receiving the priesthood. A very big event (in my mind). Sure would have liked to been in on the evolution of that one. I was not part of the crowd--and never heard any murmering about the issue at the time, but, I bet it was a problem for some especially non LDS.

If this thread dies here because of the subject I am good with that too.

Please tell us why "Temple Changes" are THAT big a deal too you?

You do know that the Temple (and the practices therein) is a TOOL for teaching TRUE ETERNAL PRINCIPLES don't you???

None of the "principles" have changed, so why do you have a problem?

Also, you mention the Priesthood change. Again, you do know that the Priesthood (and even the Gospel itself) has changed multiple times in scriptural history, in relation to "who got it", etc. etc.???

[cinepro]

Please tell us why "Temple Changes" are THAT big a deal too you?

You do know that the Temple (and the practices therein) is a TOOL for teaching TRUE ETERNAL PRINCIPLES don't you???

None of the "principles" have changed, so why do you have a problem?

Also, you mention the Priesthood change. Again, you do know that the Priesthood (and even the Gospel itself) has changed multiple times in scriptural history, in relation to "who got it", etc. etc.???

While I can't speak for Obiwan, I think I can say that some people are interested in or disconcerted by the changes to the Temple ceremony because of how much emphasis is placed on "The Temple" and everything that happen in it, and how "sacred not secret" it is.

Try this: next time you attend the Temple, look at each part of the experience. Think about every sentence in the ceremony, every sign, every token. Then ask yourself which of these might be excised within the next 50 years. What will be shortened? What will be eliminated? For every covenant, how will the wording change? What about the physical aspects of the experience? Will we have tank-top garments so women can wear sleeveless dresses? Will we have an 8 minute endowment ceremony? Will there be additions, such as additional signs and tokens? Will men and women sit intermingled instead of separately?

As you think about these things, you may come to understand why some people are startled when changes are made.

[LifeOnaPlate]

From the beginning of the restoration the Temple ceremony grew in a fluid manner. Look at the developments from the Kirtland to Nauvoo temples. Each aspect revealed a piece at a time.

Here's the cheesy awesome question of the day, though:

Should you be concerned about how the Temple has changed, should you be concerned about how the Temple has changed you?

[cinepro]

Should you be concerned about how the Temple has changed, should you be concerned about how the Temple has changed you?

Wow. I got the chills when I read that.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Try this: next time you attend the Temple, look at each part of the experience. Think about every sentence in the ceremony, every sign, every token. Then ask yourself which of these might be excised within the next 50 years. What will be shortened? What will be eliminated? For every covenant, how will the wording change? What about the physical aspects of the experience? Will we have tank-top garments so women can wear sleeveless dresses? Will we have an 8 minute endowment ceremony? Will there be additions, such as additional signs and tokens? Will men and women sit intermingled instead of separately?

You forgot to add one more question: Will any of these "projected" changes of the means prevent the intended end?

[Deborah]

Try this: next time you attend the Temple, look at each part of the experience. Think about every sentence in the ceremony, every sign, every token. Then ask yourself which of these might be excised within the next 50 years. What will be shortened? What will be eliminated?

I've actually thought of this. I can see if the people are more educated on spiritual matters and more in tune, all that one would need are certain keys and signs and all the narrative would not be necessary.

[jadams_4242]

One Element that I always failed to understand is why "secrecy" was associated with God's only true ceremony.

I mean, you do not spread "the Gospel" with secrecy. You'd want everybody "know" and

"partake" the blessings.

I haven't received a single convincing answer so far.

In a way it is like asking to a Born again to explain "Trinity".

The churchs stand is....We want members to find out themselves, not to learn from hearsay,

hearsay is not the reason a person should have the desire to go to temple?

And on the other hand hearsay should not be the reason for someone to "not" want to go to temple.

[cinepro]

You forgot to add one more question: Will any of these "projected" changes of the means prevent the intended end?

That does raise an interesting subject. To what degree can we separate the "means" and the "ends" in the Temple? And have any of the changes to the "means" ever worked to the detriment of the "ends"? Are there changes that could be made right now that would improve the "ends", but they aren't being made?