Temple Prep Class Inadequate?

[Garden Girl]

When my son and his wife went through for the first time he was very disappointed as well. He said he expected some new revelation. I explained that the revelation comes as one attends and feels the spirit. I gave the analogy of the Israelites needing to look up at the serpent to be saved. It was so simple many didn't do it and died. The temple ceremony on the surface appears simple but after many years of going I continue to get new insights. My son and his wife are now avid temple goers.

I used to think there was something wrong with me because I didn't "learn something new" every time I attended... but slowly I started to have a few Ah-Ha moments... then I read Nibley's "Temple and Cosmos" and gained even more of a respect and appreciation for the symbology and process... things that Joseph would/could not have known when teaching the ordinances.

And I do remember the first few times I went thinking how simple it was... And that did change with time and insight... then I became an ordinance worker for almost six years, every Friday... and loved it and the temple even more.

GG.

[wenglund]

All of those things you listed do not have the high expectations attached as the Temple does.

They did for me. However, please don't mis the point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mrmandias]

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.

A lot of people don't understand that because that's not what the Church teaches these days.

[treehugger]

I do not remember where I read it, but I believe there is a statement from some authority in the Church circa 1890 - 1900ish that Polygamy is not required and the members of the Church were not damned in their salvation for living it due to the laws of the land.

Edited July 20, 2012 by treehugger

[mrmandias]

I had heard so much stuff about how different and weird the temple was that I was disappointed with how Mormon and churchy it was in actuality.

[Garden Girl]

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?

Hello Tacenda...

I agree... do you think there could ever be something in the Celestial Kingdom that will be anything but perfect and beautiful. We will have our agency... our perspective will be different than this petty world.... the love we feel for others will be deep and complete in the same way Heavenly Father and the Savior love us... I've told before about the day I was set apart by the temple president as an ordinance worker, and how when I left his office I was stunned at the depth of love I felt for everyone I saw as I walked to the ladies area to dress for a session. I had no idea I could feel such love for my sisters and brothers... I look upon that as a gift; a glimpse of that CK love, that enabled me to serve my sisters in the temple ordinances.

Only what is right for us will be...

GG

Edited July 20, 2012 by Garden Girl

[Calm]

I do not remember where I read it, but I believe there is a statement from some authority in the Church circa 1890 - 1900ish that Polygamy is not required and the members of the Church were not damned in their salvation for living it due to the laws of the land.

OD 1?

[Calm]

I had heard so much stuff about how different and weird the temple was that I was disappointed with how Mormon and churchy it was in actuality.

Funny. I was (am) really into the idea of rituals and symbols growing up and I was disappointed that there wasn't much, much more when I first went. Remarkable how people have such different perspectives, don't you think?

[Calm]

I've told before about the day I was set apart by the temple president as an ordinance worker, and how when I left his office I was stunned at the depth of love I felt for everyone I saw as I walked to the ladies area to dress for a session. I had no idea I could feel such love for my sisters and brothers... I look upon that as a gift; a glimpse of that CK love, that enabled me to serve my sisters in the temple ordinances.

This sounds very much like what one of my gg..?grandmothers wrote about her experience with plural marriage and how it allowed herself and her family to experience celestial love here on earth in a way she had not been able to do otherwise. What is so exciting to me is even these types of glimpses are so limited to what the actual experience will be like. How can anyone be afraid of that as a future? Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Or has this doctrine been put to the side until one is ready for that understanding until the hereafter?

It is put aside and no longer taught because it is not permitted. We try not to teach things in the Church that are not permitted.

There seems, in my mind, to be a misunderstanding in the hearts and minds of some members regarding the mission of the Church and how it goes about filling that mission. Part of this process is that Church -- and Sunday Classes are not exercises in teaching semantics or history or obscure doctrines. They really have some very focused purposes: To build faith, to encourage further study on your own and to motivate obedience. Furthermore, the lessons are not for the purposes of challenging the intellectual capabilities of advanced or even average students. Indeed, the ideas are really supposed to be taught so that virtually everyone can access the concepts being taught and to obtain the testimony of the Spirit regarding the truth of the things taught.

Teaching Polygamy in Temple Prep class just does not fill the bill on this sort of thing.

A more appropriate, member oriented class might be the College Courses on Church History.

I even notice that in the Sunday School Manual on the Doctrine and Covenants it provides some thoughts about plural marriage but these are only to be used if someone has a question about the practice and the manual makes it clear that Plural Marriage "should not be the focus of the lesson" (emphasis is mine).

It may be, that over time, the Church may have to adulterate its Sunday School lessons because of the darts and arrows of the adversary. But honestly, I will regret any day we have to start having those types of discussions in Sunday School -- when I am looking for refreshment from the Spirit. I see very little up side to it.

[CASteinman]

Canada is really, really big.

It's REALLY big:

http://www.sctvguide.ca/features/gwn_set_2.jpg

[Calm]

A more appropriate, member oriented class might be the College Courses on Church History.

Firesides have been used for this purpose as well.

[ERayR]

Firesides have been used for this purpose as well.

The last I heard member directed firesides were discouraged because of the false doctrine and misunderstanding that come out of them. I suppose one directed by the bishop would be OK.

[Calm]

FAIR members have put on a number of them by request of bishops, stake presidents and even mission presidents (the last IIRC). Sending out announcements that one was throwing a fireside on such issues on one's own would be a 'no no'.

[CASteinman]

I think it is absolutely inadequate but not due to any conversations about polygamy.

I agree with this!!!

There are some serious limitations and problems. It needs an overhaul and some really thoughtful work.

[halconero]

The doctrine behind the necessity of the temple and the covenants we make there was something taught to me very well. The practical aspects (clothing, performance of ordinances)...not so much.

My first thought when the first item of clothing came out was...are we baking? I started giggling.

When I put the whole ensemble on I looked at everyone's head and whispered "Oh....we are definitely baking something."

Luckily my reverence since then has increased and I love the endowment.

[treehugger]

OD 1?

Lol, good point.

[selek1]

The doctrine behind the necessity of the temple and the covenants we make there was something taught to me very well. The practical aspects (clothing, performance of ordinances)...not so much.

My first thought when the first item of clothing came out was...are we baking? I started giggling.

When I put the whole ensemble on I looked at everyone's head and whispered "Oh....we are definitely baking something."

Luckily my reverence since then has increased and I love the endowment.

At least no one poked you in the belly and made "Hee hee!" noises.

[thesometimesaint]

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-

You must be pretty old. I went to the Temple Prep Class my Ward put on in 1972. I wasn't weird-ed out by going to the Temple. But it was so different than anything I'd done in Church.

[mfbukowski]

Well, this was a wake-up call for me. This sister is salt of the earth (like I said, she's the new Relief Society president, and is in her fifth year as a member), and it bothered me that she had had a negative experience. I'm just glad she was comfortable telling me about it, and what bothered her. Her concerns are completely overcome now.

In fact, we just did our annual summer sister temple trip last week, where a few brave men and I watch 25+ kids for ca. seven hours at the church so lots of sisters can go during the day together without having to get daytime babysitting. What I learned from this experience was that people getting "weirded out" is mostly avoidable with proper preparation, but that we all have the responsibility to help people and not rely on the anemic temple prep class curriculum.

Totally agreed- but again I think it is mostly the responsibility of the Bishop to do this in the right context. I just can't imagine what it would be like to have a bunch of people who had never been to the temple sitting in on a discussion group of high priests discussing whatever they wanted about the temple

So I suppose it is a fine line the curriculum people walk between having lessons which encourage improper discussions about "Yeah, the first time I went through....." and the proper, reverent, minimalist lessons we have now.

I think there should be a line in Handbook 1 about the bishop having an extended interview, explanation and instruction, as dictated by the spirit, for those about to receive their own endowments. You can't really do that in a classroom setting, but it has to be done, and I think that is the best solution.

[mfbukowski]

Funny. I was (am) really into the idea of rituals and symbols growing up and I was disappointed that there wasn't much, much more when I first went. Remarkable how people have such different perspectives, don't you think?

As a former Catholic altar boy who served the REAL mass and all the attendant ceremonies in the '50's and 60's (before they got changed in Vatican 2 and before I ditched it all and became an atheist) I have to admit I missed the ceremony and pomp. I was also kinda disappointed and that the temple ceremonies seemed so literalistic and simple the first time. Little did I know that my simple and literalistic understanding at that time was just the first layer of peeling the onion!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

WE are not commanded in the Temple to enter into polygamy.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

it was only Allowed for those who"had this law revealed to them". Not all in that day were "polygamist". Also the manifesto did away with the practice. Edited July 20, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Did you just call mormons morons? I thought that's what anti's do! No, just kiddin' you. I'm sure it was a mistake. I probably did read it somewhere on anti sites or places. But half way believed it because I'd always been told that it would be my choice. But today after reading the section in the D&C, like I've never done before, (just scanned over it), I gathered it to mean I do need to live it when I get to the CK. And when another poster very politely told me it was only to certain people not all, that the commandment would be given, I understood it a little better. I will forever come clean on MD&D because you people are some of the smartest guys & gals around.

I assure if in the CK if told to do so...out of there. I am a one woman man...in the biblical way or otherwise. My bio-father was a bigamist. Edited July 20, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[KevinG]

I taught the Temple Prep class for a while and it was centered around people being fully prepared and keeping their covenants. There were a few discussions about symbolism but more could help prepare people for the full scope of the experience.

I was fortunate to have someone pull me aside and explain what I would be going through in a respectful way and my son had his mother and I to explain what he would experience. Going through Temple Baptisms and Confirmations is another good introduction to the Temple. I don't think we can depend on the curricula and HP group teachers alone to prepare people adequately for the unique and very symbolic and sacred experience.