Saints Alive Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Is our modern Temple symbolism outdated? Are the symbols to hard for modern Saints to understand? Would a modernization be accepted by the Church or would it be too difficult to change?
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I don't have a problem with it. So I don't see much of a need for change at present. However I do expect that changes will happen as the needs of the Saints change.
KevinG Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 No. We are still steeped in the King James Bible and Book of Mormon symbolism so the Endowment shouldn't be too far out of reach for us.The endowment presentation has been updated and those symbols that could be stumbling blocks from a modern perspective have been updated as well.I do have to refrain from chuckling at the 1980s hairstyles in some of the film presentations.
cinepro Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) They've been "modernizing" it for years, and from what I can tell, it does keep getting better. Everyone has different reactions to the ceremonies, but in general it seems that those things that are most commonly objected to are the first to be changed.So who knows what could change in the future?I suspect the endowment ceremony will continue to get shortened. There's a lot that can be removed for proxy endowments. After all, we don't make everyone sit through an hour-long baptismal service when we do proxy baptisms. Edited October 13, 2011 by cinepro
Saints Alive Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 I have to disagree, without discussing specifics I think 95% of first time temple goers have no understanding of the Temples symbolism. I had to do a lot of research about free masonry and studying the work of Hugh Nibley before I felt i had a grasp of it. Admittedly i think it would be hard to find applicable modern symbols and keep intact anything that resembled a reverent ceremony. 1
Nathair/|\ Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I don't think you need to understand it the first time. You just need to feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. I'd even go so far as to question the value of any esoteric system that can be fully understood the first time. 1
Saints Alive Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 They've been "modernizing" it for years, and from what I can tell, it does keep getting better. Everyone has different reactions to the ceremonies, but in general it seems that those things that are most commonly objected to are the first to be changed. So who knows what could change in the future? I suspect the endowment ceremony will continue to get shortened. There's a lot that can be removed for proxy endowments. After all, we don't make everyone sit through an hour-long baptismal service when we do proxy baptisms.To be honest I wouldn't mind seeing a longer Endowment Ceremony (if only for first time endowments) dont think that is going to happen though.
Saints Alive Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 I don't think you need to understand it the first time. You just need to feel the presence of the Holy Ghost. I'd even go so far as to question the value of any esoteric system that can be fully understood the first time. It almost to the point where the average first time temple goer doesn't even realize that it is symbolic, they just see funny clothes and weird gestures.
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 My first time was in 1972. It was much longer than todays. Had never heard of Nibly and the Masons were just a fraternal organization to me. You can learn all about the Temple in a few visits, but I'm still learning what it means 39 years later.
KevinG Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) It almost to the point where the average first time temple goer doesn't even realize that it is symbolic, they just see funny clothes and weird gestures.That speaks to a need for better Temple preparation classes and frequent return trips rather than a change in the ceremony. I was endowed years ago and the volume of information was overwhelming the first time I went.Some of my best learning was when I was training to be a temple ordinance worker. A lot of things "clicked" for me then. Edited October 13, 2011 by DaddyG 1
Saints Alive Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 I think there needs to be a fine balance between first time understanding of symbols, so that first timers aren't completely bemused and longterm enrichment from repeated visits so that repeat visits are just as enriching. as it is now the scales are tilted toward longterm understanding.
ERayR Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Is our modern Temple symbolism outdated? Are the symbols to hard for modern Saints to understand? Would a modernization be accepted by the Church or would it be too difficult to change?It almost to the point where the average first time temple goer doesn't even realize that it is symbolic, they just see funny clothes and weird gestures.Is there anything you "like" about the LDS Church? So far this morning you have complained about the CHI and now you want to change the endowment. Is there anything else on this list of changes you want.
Ares Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Is there anything you "like" about the LDS Church? So far this morning you have complained about the CHI and now you want to change the endowment. Is there anything else on this list of changes you want.This forum is designed to discuss Mormonism. Questions are not always criticism.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I do have to refrain from chuckling at the 1980s hairstyles in some of the film presentations.I personally know one of the actors, and it is strange seeing him so young. Also, his voice was used as the voice of one of the characters in the other film, and it is very weird to hear his voice coming out of someone else's mouth!
KevinG Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 It must be weird hearing the narrator speak in Sunday School or Sacrament. I wonder what ward they attend.
maklelan Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Is our modern Temple symbolism outdated? Are the symbols to hard for modern Saints to understand? Would a modernization be accepted by the Church or would it be too difficult to change?I think Saints just need to spend more time learning what it means. I don't believe the study of the temple and its symbolism causes too much undue harm.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I think the temple symbolism is designed to be difficult.A University education in the gospel is not supposed to be easy.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 It must be weird hearing the narrator speak in Sunday School or Sacrament. I wonder what ward they attend.The actor I know is not the narrator, and has appeared in many LDS films. It must be weird being so "famous" to such a limited group of "fans"!On the other hand, I am sure that it is also weird for him to know that everyone who gives him the "I know you from somewhere" look is LDS.
maklelan Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 It must be weird hearing the narrator speak in Sunday School or Sacrament. I wonder what ward they attend.Watch the movie "A More Perfect Union." Go to the 6:06 mark here and the :49 mark here.
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Watch the movie "A More Perfect Union." Go to the 6:06 mark here ...That's who I was talking about! B. N. (gold jacket) who used to be in my stake, and has since moved elsewhere. If you listen to his voice, you will also recognize it as the voice of another character in the temple film in which he does not appear. He does have a small speaking part in the other film as "James". A one liner.I dunno if I should use his name or not, but I would rather err on the side of caution. Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) On second thought, I guess it's OK!http://sethadamsmith.blogspot.com/2011/06/bruce-newbold-narrator-for-my-video.htmlhttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0627661/filmoyear Edited October 13, 2011 by mfbukowski
boblloyd91 Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 One day I was at the Logan temple and bumped into Michael Ballam after a session. i was going to say a joke but figures he probably hears them almost every time he goes (this will make sense for those of you who know who Michael Ballam is)
KevinG Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 One day I was at the Logan temple and bumped into Michael Ballam after a session. i was going to say a joke but figures he probably hears them almost every time he goes (this will make sense for those of you who know who Michael Ballam is)Yeah- great singer. For some reason he scares me.
Maidservant Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Is our modern Temple symbolism outdated? Are the symbols to hard for modern Saints to understand? Would a modernization be accepted by the Church or would it be too difficult to change?My first time was in 1972. It was much longer than todays. Had never heard of Nibly and the Masons were just a fraternal organization to me. You can learn all about the Temple in a few visits, but I'm still learning what it means 39 years later.I think there needs to be a fine balance between first time understanding of symbols, so that first timers aren't completely bemused and longterm enrichment from repeated visits so that repeat visits are just as enriching. as it is now the scales are tilted toward longterm understanding.The knowledge you need to have in order to return to your heavenly Father is actually not in the temple.The endowment is not actually in the temple.Your endowment is this mortal life, your experiences here. In order to receive your endowment from mortality, you need the keys you receive in the temple. It will teach you how to enter your Father's presence in life.A corollary to this is that the knowledge in the temple is only about 1/3 of what you need. (There may be more, but I've only identified 3 thus far). It's like a quest where you have to piece together the map before you can have the map and see what it really says, and having only one pieces gives you an "off" picture. The temple is only one piece. The scriptures are the second piece. Life experiences are the third piece. Each of these pieces will be invested with personal revelation (the Spirit). When you see each of these three things in one (temple, scriptures, life experience), then you will have the full map and the (potential of) the full endowment. If you are missing one of the three pieces, then you don't have everything you need.The temple cannot be understood without the scriptures. The scriptures cannot be understood without the temple. There is that which is deliberately missing in each thing, so that they become whole only by being known together. Also enter life experience into the equation . . . you cannot know the temple or the scriptures without living and also pondering about what each life lesson (read: trial, challenge, joy, covenant-keeping and breaking) really means and what it teaches you about knowing God.You come to know God in life. The temple and the scriptures help you to know what it is you are seeing, as you are taken by stages to the "place" where you meet God (know God, see God, become God).There. I have made it as plain as it could possibly be. Edited October 14, 2011 by Maidservant 1
selek1 Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 This forum is designed to discuss Mormonism. Questions are not always criticism.True- but calorie-free kvetching about the Church aren't always questions, either.In the CHI/handbook thread, "Saints Alive" challenged us to judge him based on the content of his posts, rather than the similarities between his screen name and a notorious Ed Decker operation.Seems to me that ERayR's querstion qualifies as part of answering that challenge and making a fair assessment of Saints Alive.
Recommended Posts