Temple Video

[Garden Girl]

Well, that's new to me since being on this board. The symbolism of the temple wasn't ever spoken to me. Back in '84 there wasn't that kind of preparation. I've always taken it literally because it's a house of cards if we don't. What about Cain & Abel? If I don'f take it literally than I feel totally lied to. And I'm getting sick of the lying or leaving things out in this church. And of being a naive baby in learning of the real history/doctrine. La, la, la, la, I can't hear you.....

Oh c'mon Taceda... Cain and Abel?? They're biblical, not something you were lied to about in the Church per se... what do you mean? That the bible is lying? We use the bible and the creation story as part of our teachings. There are those in and out of the Church who queston in whole or part the Genesis story being literal. Many see Adam/Eve/the Garden as metaphor... My personal belief is that there was a creation, and an "Adam and Eve" who began us as the human family...

GG

[Tacenda]

Oh c'mon Taceda... Cain and Abel?? They're biblical, not something you were lied to about in the Church per se... what do you mean? That the bible is lying? We use the bible and the creation story as part of our teachings. There are those in and out of the Church who queston in whole or part the Genesis story being literal. Many see Adam/Eve/the Garden as metaphor... My personal belief is that there was a creation, and an "Adam and Eve" who began us as the human family...

GG

I'm just sayin' I was taught that it literally happened, the Adam & Eve story. And it wasn't symbolism. And I was taught that the plates were translated literally, not out of a hat. I was never told JS had several wives behind Emma's back. I was taught that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father physically appeared to Joseph, not in his mind. Just last week I sat through the first lesson of the year in Primary and the teacher said it plain and clear, out of the manual. And I'm reading in another thread that it was visual, more than likely. And millions of people in the church and I, apparently need to not only grow in the Gospel but to grow up. Sorry to disappoint. Edited January 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

If I don'f take it literally than I feel totally lied to. And I'm getting sick of the lying or leaving things out in this church.

…..I'm just sayin' I was taught that it literally happened, the Adam & Eve story. And it wasn't symbolism. And I was taught that the plates were translated literally, not out of a hat. I was never told JS had several wives behind Emma's back. I was taught that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father physically appeared to Joseph, not in his mind. Just last week I sat through the first lesson of the year in Primary and the teacher said it plain and clear, out of the manual. And I'm reading in another thread that it was visual, more than likely. And millions of people in the church and I, apparently need to not only grow in the Gospel but to grow up.

Tacenda, I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy when learning about the church. The point is still the same: it can be both. JS can literally translate and use a hat. A&E can literally have lived and have a strongly symbolic story. Other details are superfluous. The first vision could have been purely vision, a literal visitation, or both. They could have literally been there and if I was standing watching, I might have not seen anything at all.

And on A&E I was taught that they were literal people….and that it was symbolic. Plenty of people say over and over again that the temple is different because it’s “completely symbolic.” It should be fairly apparent just by looking at Satan and how he is depicted in the scriptures and the temple. Scriptures describe him as a serpant, the vid has him as a person. Same with creation. Everybody has a different idea as to how long and in what way it actually occurred. If one believes in evolution it does not mean that suddenly the biblical/temple accounts must be thrown out as false.

Lastly the presentation of church history is malleable…just like any presentation of history. It doesn’t necessitate that you’re being lied to. For a non-church example, throughout k-12 experience, whenever I had a history class that discussed Abr. Lincoln, it would paint the guy as a hero who decisively got us through the civil war and freed the slaves. It was from other sources that I learned he also suffered from severe depression, sometimes reluctant about various policies, and that he was still racist by today’s standard and was in favor of a plan to get slaves back to Africa. Does this make the presentation in k-12 false? No, it was correct information that was presented for a specific purpose. Do I feel lied to because we don’t go into the nitty-gritty in church? No. It’s information that is presented for a specific purpose that - in all the other random stuff I’ve learned about - is generally true. Church isn’t set up to give us an academic, historical presentation of the scriptures/church. It’s specifically set to give the basics and is up to the teachers discretion as to how they desire to present it. Personally, when I was a teacher, I would specifically set up my lessons in hopes to be spiritually uplifting. Was there more I could have delved into? Sure. But the purpose of church, to me, was to heal and strengthen the heart. If I wanted something more academic/theoretical I went in search of it myself.

The point is, don’t get trapped into a false dichotomy. What is presented at church is generally not wrong (I keep saying generally, because it’s presented by people…people can be very wrong at times. Like my seminary teacher who defended the traditional family structure (wife at home) up by pointing out some research on elephants….I had half a mind to ask him why he didn’t just compare the family set up to bonobo’s…I was a very cheeky child and never took things on people’s word). But it’s definitely on the basic end of things. Just as going to Sunday school should just be a portion of one’s study and you will be missing out on far deeper study and learning if you rely solely on a weekly class for your knowledge. You will likewise be limited if you rely solely on what is present in church for your historical, introspective, etc knowledge.

A greatt example are the apostles talks in GC. The presentation of their talks makes it very clear that many of them definitely seek information from outside sources and personal readings. It’s also very apparent that some have definitely looked into odd historical moments as well (like in Holland’s talk about the BoM). You want more, seek more. It’s as simple as that.

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

Tacenda, I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy when learning about the church. The point is still the same: it can be both. JS can literally translate and use a hat. A&E can literally have lived and have a strongly symbolic story. Other details are superfluous. The first vision could have been purely vision, a literal visitation, or both. They could have literally been there and if I was standing watching, I might have not seen anything at all.

And on A&E I was taught that they were literal people….and that it was symbolic.

To paraphrase Nachmanides on the biblical patrirachs, what befell the fathers was a sign of what would happen with the children. Much like in Alma 5 where Alma uses the Exodus as a symbol of the soul's salvation. A symbol is the meaning given an event or personality.

[volgadon]

That passage has the wrong context. It talks about the priests (women are excluded) wearing coats,

being anointed,and washing their hands and feet when they entered the tent. It says nothing of

them wearing white garments.

Regards,

Jim

http://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-4.htm

[BCSpace]

I think it would be unwise to ascribe literal doctrine to the video. For example, the official doctrine (from SWK and published by the Church) regarding Eve being taken from Adam's rib is that it's figurative.

Why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam and then take out one of his ribs?

My own opinion is that this is figurative of the creation; that we are all of the same stuff. Or to indicative of how men and women are one through marriage. Etc.

[BCSpace]

I think it would be unwise to ascribe literal doctrine to the video. For example, the official doctrine (from SWK and published by the Church) regarding Eve being taken from Adam's rib is that it's figurative.

I've heard that's why there are two films, so people wouldn't get hung up on the specifics of the exact details of what was being shown but would instead focus on the principles. Also, to give people who go to lots of sessions a little bit of variety.

They need at least two or three more then. I vote for adding in the pre-mortal life and giving them Star Wars like and Tolkien like atmospheres. Perhaps also some clips and music from Saturday's Warrior (inspite of it's campiness and speculative doctrine; it's somewhat figurative anyway ).

Edited January 13, 2013 by BCSpace

[Hamba Tuhan]

I saw your PM. I scanned through but will need to spend time since there's so much to read and think about. I appreciate your efforts and hopefully won't let it go to waste!

Feel free to PM me in return if you like.

[Stargazer]

They need at least two or three more then. I vote for adding in the pre-mortal life and giving them Star Wars like and Tolkien like atmospheres. Perhaps also some clips and music from Saturday's Warrior (inspite of it's campiness and speculative doctrine; it's somewhat figurative anyway ).

Actually, I named the two films according to how their opening sequences went. One has asteroids sitting in the dark to start with, and I called that one Star Wars, because of the asteroid field that the Millenial Falcon had to go through in The Empire Strikes Back. The other one started with a sequence involving planetary flybys -- and I called that one Star Trek because ST:TNG had planetary flybys as part of its opening sequence.

[volgadon]

Personally, I really don't like the Gielgudish Satan.

[canard78]

Personally, I really don't like the Gielgudish Satan.

I'm not sure which this one is... but to use stargazer's analogy... I prefer the baddie in Star Wars

[thesometimesaint]

I've always struggled with the idea that I must listen to the counsel of my husband and he must listen to the counsel of the Father. Is that symbolism and what does it mean? It separates me from going straight to the Lord. And yes, I know it's only in righteousness, and because Eve partook first. But according to LDS philosophy, Eve did the right thing. How come I'm punished for it? Especially since in the Articles of Faith we're not to be punished for Adam's transgression?

No woman is required to follow her husband into hell.

No it doesn't separate you from going straight to the Lord. You are responsible for you own prayers, and actions. You rule in righteousness along side your husband.

Eve didn't do the right thing. She didn't have Gods' permission to partake of that fruit.

You are not being punished for partaking of the fruit. You are heir to Eternal Life through Jesus the Christ.

[canard78]

No woman is required to follow her husband into hell.

No it doesn't separate you from going straight to the Lord. You are responsible for you own prayers, and actions. You rule in righteousness along side your husband.

Eve didn't do the right thing. She didn't have Gods' permission to partake of that fruit.

You are not being punished for partaking of the fruit. You are heir to Eternal Life through Jesus the Christ.

"Eve didn't do the right thing"... the message in the Eden story tells us that without Eve's decision to partake, humanity wouldn't exist. "I forbid it" was a warning about the consequences of "death" that would follow the decision to partake... not a commandment to resist sin.

If Eve "didn't do the right thing" what would have happened in your view if she had "done the right thing." The apple wasn't about sinning, it was willingly about choosing and embracing the next stage of life. Something we all do in coming to earth and repeat in welcoming spirits into the bodies we create for them. In doing so we 'do the right thing' but we also create death, through choosing and then giving life.

[Tacenda]

I disagree Canard. Eve would have had further instruction from HF but listened to the serpent. She sinned alright. HF knew this and had to establish a Saviour. Had he not they would die in sin never having eternal life. To say otherwise lessons the saving Grace of our Lord God.

[canard78]

I disagree Canard. Eve would have had further instruction from HF but listened to the serpent. She sinned alright. HF knew this and had to establish a Saviour. Had he not they would die in sin never having eternal life. To say otherwise lessons the saving Grace of our Lord God.

And I'm happy for you to find and apply a meaning/principle that speaks to you. I'm not saying that my understanding has to apply to all people. It works for me as an understanding. Given we're taught that the garden is symbolic (which could also be a symbolic historically literal event), symbolism can have different meaning to lots of people.

My feeling is that Adam and Eve are alegories for all of us. "As in Adam all die..." - I read this as we all die physically and spiritually. We choose it, we embrace it. We engage with a process that will be both delicious and dreary. Christ's atonement is needed for every person who is born because we natrually fall away. Not because of anything Adam and Eve did, but because of 'weakness' in our spiritual and physical nature.

[Tacenda]

And I'm happy for you to find and apply a meaning/principle that speaks to you. I'm not saying that my understanding has to apply to all people. It works for me as an understanding. Given we're taught that the garden is symbolic (which could also be a symbolic historically literal event), symbolism can have different meaning to lots of people.

My feeling is that Adam and Eve are alegories for all of us. "As in Adam all die..." - I read this as we all die physically and spiritually. We choose it, we embrace it. We engage with a process that will be both delicious and dreary. Christ's atonement is needed for every person who is born because we natrually fall away. Not because of anything Adam and Eve did, but because of 'weakness' in our spiritual and physical nature.

I am coming from a non LDS Christian perspective, so it's probably good you disagree. I'm LDS, but through some soul searching I like this scenario best. I just don't like the thought that God would be confusing like that. To me anyway.

[canard78]

I am coming from a non LDS Christian perspective, so it's probably good you disagree. I'm LDS, but through some soul searching I like this scenario best. I just don't like the thought that God would be confusing like that. To me anyway.

I completely empathise with some of the confusion and uncertainty. For me thinking about the whole Eden story as a parable/symbol helps me to take lessons from it, rather than the tangle that 'literalism' puts me into. Perhaps it's a coping mechanism.

[theplains]

http://www.templeins..._garments-4.htm

Thanks for the link. I saw a reference to the High Priest only wearing the garments, but not

women. Also consider that in the Old Testament, there was only one High Priest at a time,

not two or more concurrently.

Do you have a scriptural reference showing that the early Christians (men and women) wore

white garments when they went to the temple?

Jim

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just don't like the thought that God would be confusing like that.

You must know that it's absolutely necessary that your children make wrong choices in order to learn and grow, and yet I feel reasonably confident that you've always taught your children not to make wrong choices. Do they find you confusing?

[Tacenda]

You must know that it's absolutely necessary that your children make wrong choices in order to learn and grow, and yet I feel reasonably confident that you've always taught your children not to make wrong choices. Do they find you confusing?

I never tell them not to do something, expecting them to disregard it and do something else. That would just be messing with their minds abit.

ETA: What is so difficult to understand that we could have been fine with our HF? And not sinned. I know it's not LDS belief but a non LDS belief is that Adam & Eve would have eventally learned how to have children.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

Do you have a scriptural reference showing that the early Christians (men and women) wore white garments when they went to the temple?

Boy, you're having a hard time dealing with this whole "continuing revelation" thing, aren't you?

Edited January 14, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Hamba Tuhan]

I never tell them not to do something, expecting them to disregard it and do something else.

So every time you've ever told your children not to do something, they've exactly followed your counsel? Or are you just genuinely surprised on a regular basis???

What's is so difficult to understand that we could have been fine with our HF? And not sinned.

You may want to review 2 Nephi 2. There can be no growth or progression -- and therefore no salvation or exaltation -- without sin.

[canard78]

Thanks for the link. I saw a reference to the High Priest only wearing the garments, but not

women. Also consider that in the Old Testament, there was only one High Priest at a time,

not two or more concurrently.

Do you have a scriptural reference showing that the early Christians (men and women) wore

white garments when they went to the temple?

Jim

Hi Jim, we have lots of people with different beliefs on the board (which is welcomed) so am aware that you may be approaching this from a different perspective.

Are you concerned that the latter-day Endowment is different to the ancient use of temples? i.e. do you feel that the difference is undermining credibility in the current one?

Or is it simply to see where the similarities are?

[Tacenda]

So every time you've ever told your children not to do something, they've exactly followed your counsel? Or are you just genuinely surprised on a regular basis???

You may want to review 2 Nephi 2. There can be no growth or progression -- and therefore no salvation or exaltation -- without sin.

Hamba, I never want to have them disobey a plea to do something that I feel is right. Is it that you think HF wanted us with Him but believed it is in our best interest to go out on our own, leave the nest so to speak? That may be acceptable to me. Sorta.

But in our LDS belief we are saying that HF really wants us to sin to learn? I guess I'm a slow learner. And I tend to side with the thought that HF wanted to create beings and they would live in a beautiful environment and la la land perhaps, have their families and so forth. But it was their choice to disobey, but it wasn't what our HF really wanted for us and when we chose wrong, he had to save us. We chose the devil instead of him. We fell for the lie. Or did we? Maybe the devil was correct, when we followed him. Because without following Satan, we wouldn't be Gods/Goddesses. So are we living in Satan's world not HF? Are we going to be Gods/Goddesses or not, and are deceived by Satan. Are we really going to hell for choosing to be Gods/Goddesses? According to some EV's?

Edited January 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba, I never want to have them disobey a plea to do something that I feel is right.

Of course you don't, which is why you teach them to do what is right. At the same time, you must know (a) that they're inevitably going to ignore you and make wrong choices anyway and (b) that these wrong choices, in addition to bringing them (hopefully temporary!) heartache and sorrow, are necessary for them in order to learn and know things for themselves. It is only in this way that they can internalise what you've been teaching them, choosing it because they've learnt by personal experience that what you told them really is true.

Is it that you think HF wanted us with Him but believed it is in our best interest to go out on our own, leave the nest so to speak?

Bingo! And I just don't think this; the scriptures and the prophets clearly teach this principle. It's all tied up in the concept of agency. How can we act for ourselves unless we're placed in an environment in which there are real alternatives amongst which to choose? And where we feel free to make our own choices because, as you've put it, we've left the nest? The Atonement of Christ is the greatest gift imaginable not just because it rescues us from sin and death but because it provides us the opportunity to learn what we need to from sin and death and then rescues us.