why me Posted September 10, 2012 Author Posted September 10, 2012 While I hate the demeaning tone the anti websites take in regards to the temple, I do feel that we could talk more about elements of the temple than we do. Sure, there are certain part that we promise not to reveal. But, there is so much more we could talk about.I think that you are right. We can discuss it more than we do. During the prediscussion before the priesthood lesson, I mentioned the video of the temple ceremony on the net, and the priesthood leader said: We shouldn't talk about that. But I think that he only heard temple and ceremony and that was enough.However, I managed to point out that missionaries need to know this and so do members because their friends may ask them questions if they see the video. But...it went over like a lead balloon.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 This is a despicable act by someone who has made an oath to God. God will be his judge. I wouldn't even do something like that in a secular setting if I took an oath not to reveal certain things or even if it was understood as part of the policy. Many people who leave companies sign non-disclosure agreements. There can be serious consequences if they do even if they no longer believe in the company. Imagine the consequences to God for breaching a trust.I agree.I wonder whether Rob Bowman (and maybe his board of directors at IRR) will now take down their temple content -- since so much more is available elsewhere. I'd like them to do it out of respect for others, but here a little, there a little, etc., and in time it may become clear why we should never do such things.
Tacenda Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 I think this will affect missionary work.
Storm Rider Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 I think this will affect missionary work.Do you really? Why? I served in the temple for eight years and there is very, very little that I would change. The covenants we make are similar to those made by others that are committed to God and being a disciple. I have not compared the covenants or commitments that religious make in the Catholic Church, but I suspect these would seem minor or equivalent to those they make.I think this is a non-event. We, as LDS, are making it to be more than it is; the proverbial tempest in a teapot.
why me Posted September 10, 2012 Author Posted September 10, 2012 Do you really? Why? I served in the temple for eight years and there is very, very little that I would change. The covenants we make are similar to those made by others that are committed to God and being a disciple. I have not compared the covenants or commitments that religious make in the Catholic Church, but I suspect these would seem minor or equivalent to those they make.I think this is a non-event. We, as LDS, are making it to be more than it is; the proverbial tempest in a teapot.It is not quite a non-event. It affects missionary work because people will ask the missionaries about the temple endowment ceremony and use what they have seen as a discussion point. Difficult for any missionary to respond: well, we don't talk about it. Or...It is too sacred to be discussed.
why me Posted September 10, 2012 Author Posted September 10, 2012 I think this will affect missionary work.Not just missionary work but the life of any member who will need to address friends or work mates who have seen the video. Since it is on the web it may be difficult to use the sacred angle.
Saints Alive Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 Not just missionary work but the life of any member who will need to address friends or work mates who have seen the video. Since it is on the web it may be difficult to use the sacred angle.Regardless of how anyone feels about talking about the temple, I think we can all agree that the average non MD&D going LDS is ill equipped to answer anything but the most basic questions about the temple. I think the sacred angle is valid but the explanation of it the average Joe Mormon gives is insufficient in the day of web searches and micro cameras. VIsually and to modern eyes the temple is very different than any thing else in Christendom. A little historical background and an open mind go a long way in demystifying it.
Storm Rider Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 It is not quite a non-event. It affects missionary work because people will ask the missionaries about the temple endowment ceremony and use what they have seen as a discussion point. Difficult for any missionary to respond: well, we don't talk about it. Or...It is too sacred to be discussed.If the film was complete everyone will know that each person covenants not to talk about it. When they do ask a LDS about it and the LDS responds that they hold the temple sacred and do not discuss some of the things discussed therein anywhere else, but the temple. If questions persist, a humble, "I will not answer those questions; I honor my covenants regardless of the actions of others" will suffice. In doing so, we achieve two things: we confirm that we honor our covenants and we make the poor, stupid soul's actions that broke their personal covenants with God look all the more heinous.This offends those who have attended the temple because it is so brazen, so counter to that which we hold sacred. However, to the world all it does is satisfy mere curiosity; a curiosity that was already on the Internet in various other media formats.This will pass into oblivion except for that individual whose heart is black and was more than willing to sell his own soul for the accolades of man. As I write this I think of all the time that I do not live up fully to each and every covenant I made in the temple. I plead for mercy, but for this individual who breaks the covenant not to discuss things outside of the temple I am ready to consign his soul to endless torment. It is so easy for me to condemn him/her, while I have this beam in my eye.
why me Posted September 10, 2012 Author Posted September 10, 2012 I think that the comments section for the video should be disabled. That would help. The comments that are being made are not flattering. But take away the comments section and the video loses its power. I sent a link to two people on the forum. If they could write to the site and request that this should happen it would be a big help. And get their friends to do it too. 1
grannysue Posted September 10, 2012 Posted September 10, 2012 I have neither visited the site nor read the comments. To be honest, I avoid reading comments made beneath most articles pertaining to the Church, because so many of them are not only unflattering but insulting. (In other words: not much fun to read.) They get my dander up. As for the temple ceremony, I expect people will find it strange...And in at least one place, not "PC." But what are ya gonna do? It was only a matter of time until someone did this. In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. I had certainly seen online photos before, and I seem to recall seeing a partial video once, too.It will be interesting to see what the Church advises once this video has been viewed by many in the public realm. I wonder if the powers that be will provide some guidance on how to respond to questions, ie. (a) Should we politely refuse to discuss it at all? (b) Explain the basics on a superficial level? © Do something else entirely? Is there any possibility that they will decide to ease the current standard of non-disclosure now that all has been disclosed, perhaps allowing us to talk about this endowment ceremony that we hold sacred if the intent of the person questioning is honorable? (Hard to judge that one, though...)Strange times, these internet days... 1
sunstoned Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 VIsually and to modern eyes the temple is very different than any thing else in Christendom. A little historical background and an open mind go a long way in demystifying it.I'm not sure that the historical background would help at all. The current ceremony might appear odd to outsiders, but it is still much more palatable than the pre-1980 version and the pre-1927 version.
Saints Alive Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 I'm not sure that the historical background would help at all. The current ceremony might appear odd to outsiders, but it is still much more palatable than the pre-1980 version and the pre-1927 version. I was referring to ancient history. Not the history of the endowment in the last dispensation.
David T Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) After thinking about it for a while, here's my current thoughts:While I think the individual who put it up is a scum bucket, I don't have a problem with the presentation of the endowment being available for viewing.It is highly recommended that Missionaries bring investigators to attend a Baptism, and to attend Sacrament meeting. Generally, the ordinances are observed in these cases, but not partaken of. Even though they have seen the ordinance, and the technicalities are nothing new, It becomes something new, sacred, and special when they are experiencing and receiving it. Greater context and meaning is given. Blessings are specifically bestowed and promised that are not through mere observation.Since we know there is no eternal significance in the actual physical specific signs and tokens used (they are convenient placeholders with reference to another context that most members have no association with today), I can easily forsee a time where, just like the New Names, the symbols are placed on a rotation basis, and alternated from time to time. This will also make more clear that the symbols are just that - symbols. (and perhaps keep people awake - what's the sign of the day?)I see the Church eventually presenting a more detailed outline, and being more open about the specific covenants made - those are not secret, and I think more problems arise than benefits when they are treated as such. I think it's great that Elder Hales published a diagram in his latest book showing all of the covenants, and their association with either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Order.When the S&T are viewed as symbolic of our trustworthiness with the Lord, and ability to keep a promise, to me, they gain the most significance. IE, I'm not concerned at all with others knowing those symbols, even if the entire world does. My responsibility isn't to keep them from knowing them, it's to personally not reveal them or facilitate their disclosure myself.I think there is some highly practical, non-doctrinal Temple reform that the reality-check of this situation may facilitate. I think it will end up being a net win for us. It can certainly lead to some uncomfortable moments until then, though.NewNameNoah just presented the Forbidden Fruit, doing only that which had been done before in previous contexts. While the result may eventually be recognized as beneficial, it was not his place to do it, it was unauthorized, and it was done through deception and mal-intent. (seeing what he chooses as his Avatar, I'd be surprised to find the connection of the role he's playing is lost on him) Edited September 11, 2012 by David T
Saints Alive Posted September 11, 2012 Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) looking at the comments It amazes me the hatred some people have. I don't care if you believe in the church or not but to go out of your way to be ugly and demeaning just baffles me. I guess maybe people do these things for the same reason they climb mountains and create computer viruses... because its there and they can... Edited September 11, 2012 by Saints Alive
Recommended Posts