New Endowment Presentation Rolling Out Today (No Details)

[David T]

I do consider academic study of the scriptures and the Church a personal expression/act of worship for me. And yet I still am well aware of the need to acknowledge the important distinction between participating in an ordinance, and studying it. There is a substantial difference between reading the scriptural and historical work there is concerning Baptism, including the words of the ordinance, and participating in that ordinance. Same goes for the Sacrament. We can read accounts of the Sacrament, and read variations (the development and evolution?) in the scriptures, and Church history, and learn from them - and yet, it is a different experience to participate in the ordinance.

I'm not being coy, I have listened to recordings and read transcripts of earlier versions of the ordinance than I have participated in. One of the interesting side effects was in reading earlier conference addresses and other work by General Authorities, finding very specific subtle and not-so-subtle allusions and references and quotations being used to their contemporary temple experience that would be sadly lost on a modern temple attendee.

I find the development fascinating, and inspiring. And yet the lived Temple Experience for me is still distinct, sacred, and set apart.

I was simply curious on how this was viewed by other members, seeing that now it is a reality that many antagonistic members are available to (and do) access versions of our Living Scripture Tradition that it is widely seen as taboo for members themselves to even have knowledge of, let alone access to.

[cinepro]

I don't see the Temple having a 'Study Room' with transcripts of past versions available for review by patrons being a thing anytime soon. Although that would be awesome.

I suspect if you suggested it to a GA or member of a Temple Presidency, the response would be "What past versions?"

[Calm]

But I still recognise the best place to discover it is inside and in action.

It is all about preparing the ground for faith to grow in. If how and what one chooses to study renders the ground sterile....not a good way to go about it. If on the other hand, the ground yields good fruit in massive amounts when one attends the temple, then one can be assured that one is creating a fertile nurturing environment for one's sacred space.

But it is wisdom, imo, to begin at least in small amounts to learn was it best for oneself to avoid going so far as to render the ground barren by mistake. Plus frequent visits if one is able is part of what is most likely to produce the most fertile soil anyway.

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me that studying past endowments is more of an academic pursuit than a covenantal one....I too think of this covenant ritual as necessary to be lived through...though academic study of surrounding aspects would be appropriate, I feel like a certain sacred mindset should be developed about the ritual itself and anything that might tempt us to shift that perspective to a more mundane one should probably be avoided. The sacred space surrounding the endowment does not have to be very big, but I think it has to be very 'dense' so to speak to prevent distractions and degradation (as in 'lessening' not perverting). I certainly believe there is much we can freely discuss, much more than is typical, but there is a core that should remain completely temple and soul bound to provide us with a secure, immoveable anchor around which our worlds can revolve....the celestial axis or tree that unites heaven and earth that allows for man in spirit to ascend towards God and God to condescend to man through revelation.

s always, perfectly on the money.

Why do temples exist? To provide a sacred symbol-filled environment to provide an experience, not to present a text.

Divorcing the text from the experience is like sex without love- it rips one element out of context, and essentially becomes the spiritual equivalent of pornography.

Also the mindset we bring to the endowment is essential and we will never view the historical examples as the people who experienced them did.

Edited August 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[David T]

Divorcing the text from the experience is like sex without love- it rips one element out of context, and essentially becomes the spiritual equivalent of pornography.

Does studying baptism and the sacrament constitute spiritual porn to you, too?

[halconero]

Does studying baptism and the sacrament constitute spiritual porn to you, too?

Me thinks you need to go back and read a little deeper what he is trying to say.

[Storm Rider]

I suspect if you suggested it to a GA or member of a Temple Presidency, the response would be "What past versions?"

You obviously have not talked to a GA or to any member of a temple presidency. You may want to try it sometime before making another baseless accusation. Cine, it really is not too difficult to have a modicum of neutrality, reality, and honesty.

[canard78]

You obviously have not talked to a GA or to any member of a temple presidency. You may want to try it sometime before making another baseless accusation. Cine, it really is not too difficult to have a modicum of neutrality, reality, and honesty.

Would you make yourself the benchmark for neutrality?

[mfbukowski]

Does studying baptism and the sacrament constitute spiritual porn to you, too?

There are some things done in privacy and others which are done publicly. I think you know the difference.

Confusing those two contexts is what makes pornography, pornography.

Edited August 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[David T]

There are some things done in privacy and others which are done publicly. I think you know the difference.

Confusing those two contexts is what makes pornography, pornography.

I understand the point I think you're trying to make, I just think your porn analogy is an absolutely terrible one in the context of an endowed member reviewing a communal experience that is part of their scriptural and sacred tradition.

Also the mindset we bring to the endowment is essential and we will never view the historical examples as the people who experienced them did.

Then should one quit reading ancient apocalyptic vision accounts, which are essentially interpreted Temple experiences and symbols brought dynamically to life? Is Hugh Nibley a pornographer for his attempts to repeat and reveal accounts of what he sees as Early Christian equivalents of the rituals?

I find your comparison of what is popularly and regularly referred to as one of the most wicked and sinful and degrading diseases of this generation with what is essentially a form of devotional scripture study to be repellant.

I fully and completely understand and sympathize that people can be uncomfortable with 'outsiders' experiencing these private events removed from context, but to equate someone who has been initiated and seeks to explore, review, and ponder their liturgical experience and its heritage as a pornography patron is insulting, and does indeed degrade the work. What you're suggesting is that an individual who privately appreciates private pictures of his own wife while she is away on a trip to enjoy her (while not participating in any sexual act) is guilty of being a patron of pornography. Yes, certainly different if someone not married to the individual steals that picture (and thus, it is understandably 'safer' if no pictures are made at all), but in your mind, does having a private image of one's spouse, with the understanding that it is never to stand in for the REAL DEAL in any way, constitute something immoral?

Perhaps you do feel that way. But I would say still that this would be a far, far closer analogy than the generalization you made. Either way, comparing the ordinance to the highly loaded rhetoric of sexuality I feel is very much not helpful, and would request it not be pursued.

Edited August 14, 2013 by David T

[mfbukowski]

I understand the point I think you're trying to make, I just think your porn analogy is an absolutely terrible one in the context of an endowed member reviewing a communal experience that is part of their scriptural and sacred tradition.

Then should one quit reading ancient apocalyptic vision accounts, which are essentially interpreted Temple experiences and symbols brought dynamically to life? Is Hugh Nibley a pornographer for his attempts to repeat and reveal accounts of what he sees as Early Christian equivalents of the rituals?

I find your comparison of what is popularly and regularly referred to as one of the most wicked and sinful and degrading diseases of this generation with what is essentially a form of devotional scripture study to be repellant.

I fully and completely understand and sympathize that people can be uncomfortable with 'outsiders' experiencing these private events removed from context, but to equate someone who has been initiated and seeks to explore, review, and ponder their liturgical experience and its heritage as a pornography patron is insulting, and does indeed degrade the work. What you're suggesting is that an individual who privately appreciates private pictures of his own wife while she is away on a trip to enjoy her (while not participating in any sexual act) is guilty of being a patron of pornography. Yes, certainly different if someone not married to the individual steals that picture (and thus, it is understandably 'safer' if no pictures are made at all), but in your mind, does having a private image of one's spouse, with the understanding that it is never to stand in for the REAL DEAL in any way, constitute something immoral?

Perhaps you do feel that way. But I would say still that this would be a far, far closer analogy than the generalization you made. Either way, comparing the ordinance to the highly loaded rhetoric of sexuality I feel is very much not helpful, and would request it not be pursued.

Holy cow this is the way wars get started- can't we just get a little nuanced, for Pete's sake and not let the language blow things out of proportion? I mean we could start a rumble if you want between the folks that gave me rep points and the folk who gave you rep points if you like. (kidding )

This is what I was replying to:

So here's a question - is there a moral problem with an active, endowed member privately reviewing and meditating on the presentation (an admittedly surreptitiously obtained and posted version) on YouTube or an mp3? If so, why?

Suddenly downloading anti-mormon material which arguably the anti-mormons are getting paid to post, becomes

"what is essentially a form of devotional scripture study"

??

I am talking about paying anti-mormons to record the temple ceremonies and you are talking about "devotional scripture study"

Please tell me you can tell the difference

Edited August 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I didn't mean to offend anybody. To be offended it takes two- one who gives offense and one who takes offense. If I gave it, I apologize.

[boulder257]

I have heard it argued that our bodies are temples, and just like our physical temples where we worship, sometimes we adorn our bodies with beautiful pictures, art, etc. So, would the LDS faith look down upon a religious tattoo? Is the LDS argument that any tattoo is defacing the temple rather than adorning it?

[rpn]

Is the LDS argument that any tattoo is defacing the temple rather than adorning it?

Have you read anything from a church leader in conference that says tattoos are discouraged, BECAUSE they deface the temple? I don't think I have. It is my understanding that the issue is fitting a main stream conservative (not political, just not out there) look. I think it more as making sure our appearance does not detract or obscure the message of our lives (which should be to represent our Savior).

[cdowis]

Have you read anything from a church leader in conference that says tattoos are discouraged, BECAUSE they deface the temple?

http://www.lds.org/s...ng&query=deface

Look it up yourself.

Edited August 15, 2013 by cdowis

[boulder257]

Have you read anything from a church leader in conference that says tattoos are discouraged, BECAUSE they deface the temple? I don't think I have. It is my understanding that the issue is fitting a main stream conservative (not political, just not out there) look. I think it more as making sure our appearance does not detract or obscure the message of our lives (which should be to represent our Savior).

I'm not LDS and am not familiar with all of the teachings. I was curious about the LDS position after reading some of the posts on this board, which is why I asked. I am sorry if you somehow felt disrespected by my question. I was under the impression the board was for education as much as it was for discussion.

[David T]

This is what I was replying to:

So here's a question - is there a moral problem with an active, endowed member privately reviewing and meditating on the presentation (an admittedly surreptitiously obtained and posted version) on YouTube or an mp3? If so, why?

Suddenly downloading anti-mormon material which arguably the anti-mormons are getting paid to post, becomes

"what is essentially a form of devotional scripture study"

I am talking about paying anti-mormons to record the temple ceremonies and you are talking about "devotional scripture study"

Please tell me you can tell the difference

I think I see the problem. My intended emphasis was on the "privately reviewing and meditating on the presentation ... on YouTube or an mp3?", and your emphasis was on the parenthetical "(an admittedly surreptitiously obtained and posted version)".

"Devotional scripture study" was in reference to " privately reviewing and meditating on [a recording of] the presentation ", and you were referring to the antagonistic act of posing intending to be an expose. The act of posting with the intent to expose being "anti". The recording, if without commentary, is not in and of itself "anti-mormon material", because it's, well, a copy of something the Church produced, and, in and of itself, I'd say the Temple Ordinances are highly Pro-Mormon.

And for the record, the version I had obtained (after a search curious about availability) was downloaded not from any antagonistic owned or operated website, but from a third party public archival site the Church itself uses for many of its historical documents . Whether or not the individuals were initially paid to obtain the material or not, at least from this source, there is no further monetary compensation occurring.

This is the nuance I'm talking about. I understand the act of recording, 'revealing', and distributing the material for antagonistic purposes is clearly not good, and significantly more so for those who have made explicit covenants not to do so. My key question was in reference to current Temple Recommend holding individuals who have had an authorized and legitimate Temple Experience reviewing a recording of that experience, with the assumption that they are not further paying the surreptitious provider, so to say.

I acknowledge my tone in the former post was an overreaction, and do apologize for that. I hope it's clearer why I did take exception to a recording of a sacred experience being reviewed by someone who has participated in (and is presently authorized to continue to participate in) that exact sacred experience being compared with Porn.

Edited August 15, 2013 by David T

[bluebell]

I'm not LDS and am not familiar with all of the teachings. I was curious about the LDS position after reading some of the posts on this board, which is why I asked. I am sorry if you somehow felt disrespected by my question. I was under the impression the board was for education as much as it was for discussion.

It's definitely fine that you asked. Rpn might have been under the assumption that you were a member.

And yes, we have been counseled not to get tattoos and one reason is because they 'deface' our bodies, which are to be seen as temples that house our spirits.

[Calm]

This is the nuance I'm talking about. I understand the act of recording, 'revealing', and distributing the material for antagonistic purposes is clearly not good, and significantly more so for those who have made explicit covenants not to do so. My key question was in reference to current Temple Recommend holding individuals who have had an authorized and legitimate Temple Experience reviewing a recording of that experience, with the assumption that they are not further paying the surreptitious provider, so to say.

We could get into an extended ethical discussion about whether it is appropriate to use material that is itself morally neutral or even positive if the source from which one ultimately obtains such things is morally tainted (as in using medical information obtained from experimenting on prisoners without their permission)....but I am in the middle of too many involved conversations already...so let's pretend I didn't mention this.

[Tacenda]

My mom had a hard time in the beginnings of her Alzheimer's with the endowment session. We soon needed to take her only for initiatory work. And I have had a hard time getting through the sessions and remembering everything also. So I could definitely see how a you tube of the endowment session would help. But see how it would be dishonest in a way. Or the lazy way to learn it all, and one should attend the temple over and over so they familiarize themselves with it.

[Deborah]

Finally saw the new presentation. Oh, my, what a difference putting emotion into the words makes. It was beautiful and moving and yet what I've heard for years. The people who made that were certainly inspired.

 

Those wanting a You tube presentation to watch do not understand the purpose of the presentation in the context of the temple itself. It cannot possibly be met with the same spirit and meaning as it does in the temple and it is subject to ridicule by those who don't understand. You just need to go on a regular basis and think about what is going on in the context of that sacred place.

[hearserve]

My mom had a hard time in the beginnings of her Alzheimer's with the endowment session. We soon needed to take her only for initiatory work. And I have had a hard time getting through the sessions and remembering everything also. So I could definitely see how a you tube of the endowment session would help. But see how it would be dishonest in a way. Or the lazy way to learn it all, and one should attend the temple over and over so they familiarize themselves with it.

People who think that "learning" the endowment outside of the temple is a good idea reminds me of the time one of my boys thought it would be fun to play with his new goldfish outside of the fishbowl. In both instances, the living essence of the object of interest is quickly extinguished, leaving one with a feeling of disappointment ( or worse).

[cinepro]

And yes, we have been counseled not to get tattoos and one reason is because they 'deface' our bodies, which are to be seen as temples that house our spirits.

 

Wait, are we talking about the same God?

 

 

 

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

1 Samuel 16

 

 

 

 

"Except when it comes to tattoos and multiple ear piercings for women and any piercings for men, not counting tattoos from the army or before someone became a member of the LDS Church.  Then, saith the Lord, dost I look upon the outward appearance."

 

Edited August 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

I think it is more about how we look upon and treat ourselves than how the Lord looks on us.  I think the direction was as much due to concern for why people were getting such things done to their bodies as the markings and piercings themselves.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[David T]

  

"Except when it comes to tattoos and multiple ear piercings for women and any piercings for men, not counting tattoos from the army or before someone became a member of the LDS Church.  Then, saith the Lord, dost I look upon the outward appearance."

 

 

"And thou shalt not, in this day, have a beard, as mine servants of old - for then thou art also in the image of me and mine son, as represented in art and film. For ye shall not appear as awesome as we are depicted. Amen."

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T