HappyJackWagon Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I already explained where in the initiatory you enter a covenant. You may not see it, but it's there every bit as much as any covenant at Baptism.I know where the garment language is in the initiatory but it doesn't say what you claim. You are inferring it is there because the TR question says it is. But the wording of wearing it "night and day" as indicated in the question is not there.
JLHPROF Posted March 13, 2015 Author Posted March 13, 2015 I know where the garment language is in the initiatory but it doesn't say what you claim. You are inferring it is there because the TR question says it is. But the wording of wearing it "night and day" as indicated in the question is not there. Then I am curious as to where you find the Baptismal covenant?Or the renewing of covenants with the sacrament? Heck, the person entering the marriage covenant says as much as the person receiving the garment in the initiatory? The covenant is just more spelled out.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Then I am curious as to where you find the Baptismal covenant?Or the renewing of covenants with the sacrament? Heck, the person entering the marriage covenant says as much as the person receiving the garment in the initiatory? The covenant is just more spelled out.JLHPROF, I imagine you're being cheeky with this because the baptismal covenants are found in multiple places in the scriptures. As one example, just read about Alma's adventures baptising at the waters of Mormon if you are unclear on this. The sacrament covenants are also found within the canonized prayers of blessing the sacrament before partaking. And no, the person in the initiatory says even less than a person in a sealing. In the sealing words are spoken before the receiver affirms acceptance. There is no such thing regarding the temple garment in the intitiatory. So your examples are all weak. The issue of the garment "covenant" would be similar to assuming additional promises as part of partaking of the sacrament. Sacrament Prayer-O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen Claiming we've covenanted to wear the garment night and day and not even take it off to perform hard yard work when that language is not found in the ordinanceand would be like saying in this sacrament prayer we are covenanting to change our legal name to Jesus Christ. In my view it's adding to the intent of the covenant and interpreting in a pharasaical way. If they want that to be a part of the covenant the simple solution would be to include the language in the ordinance. What really bothers me is, that even though I wear the garment night and day, I'm being told I've agreed to something when I never really did. Change the language of the covenant to make it clear or don't pretend like added interpretations have been agreed to. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 14, 2015 Author Posted March 14, 2015 JLHPROF, I imagine you're being cheeky with this because the baptismal covenants are found in multiple places in the scriptures. As one example, just read about Alma's adventures baptising at the waters of Mormon if you are unclear on this. The sacrament covenants are also found within the canonized prayers of blessing the sacrament before partaking. And no, the person in the initiatory says even less than a person in a sealing. In the sealing words are spoken before the receiver affirms acceptance. There is no such thing regarding the temple garment in the intitiatory. So your examples are all weak. The issue of the garment "covenant" would be similar to assuming additional promises as part of partaking of the sacrament. Claiming we've covenanted to wear the garment night and day and not even take it off to perform hard yard work when that language is not found in the ordinanceand would be like saying in this sacrament prayer we are covenanting to change our legal name to Jesus Christ. In my view it's adding to the intent of the covenant and interpreting in a pharasaical way. If they want that to be a part of the covenant the simple solution would be to include the language in the ordinance. What really bothers me is, that even though I wear the garment night and day, I'm being told I've agreed to something when I never really did. Change the language of the covenant to make it clear or don't pretend like added interpretations have been agreed to. Matthew 22:11-13
HappyJackWagon Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Matthew 22:11-13 Matthew 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:Can you elaborate on your point?Was this man supposed to wear the wedding garment 24/7 or just to the wedding? Would the expectation of when and where to wear the garment be spelled out or should it be assumed to be a 24/7 kind of commandment?
JLHPROF Posted March 14, 2015 Author Posted March 14, 2015 Can you elaborate on your point?Was this man supposed to wear the wedding garment 24/7 or just to the wedding? Would the expectation of when and where to wear the garment be spelled out or should it be assumed to be a 24/7 kind of commandment? Do we know when Christ is returning? Do we want to be found to be wearing the wedding garment when he does? Does it matter since he gave a parable about it?
HappyJackWagon Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 Do we know when Christ is returning? Do we want to be found to be wearing the wedding garment when he does? Does it matter since he gave a parable about it?So you are assuming that the temple garment is the same as the wedding garment in the parable? This isn't referenced in the initiatory like other scriptures may be. I understand the extrapolation of the concept to ALWAYS wear it. My point is that it is not actually part of the covenant. If it is important to be considered part of the covenant it should be made to be part of the covenant. If 24/7 wearing is a real requirement wouldn't it be suggested that people wear the G for workouts and swimming. It would be a shame to be involved with some kind of activity that is currently considered approved non-G appropriate when Christ returned. That would just be bad luck.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 I think we sometimes get so focused on staying away from the edge of the cliff that we push into the mountain when that really isn't necessary or good. It is essential to know exactly what we are covenanting and not making up additional pharisiacal rules in an effort to more farther from the cliff. If it's not part of the covenenant it's not necessary. This question for me stems from the Temple Recommend Interview reminder that we have covenented to wear the garment both night and day when I really don't find that language in any covenant. So in other words, we're reminded of details of a covenent that hasn't been made. The initiatory language is much more broad than that and open to significant interpretation except for the "reminder" of covenant language that was never received to begin with. Sometimes? Perhaps. But please explain how wearing “the garment both night and day” is, per se, pushing “into the mountain” or spiritually harmful (or otherwise bad). Other than the possibility of a little inconvenience or (horrors) not always being able to wear the latest clothing styles, what is the downside? As for “pharisaical,” how can my doing something be considered hypocritical if I believe that virtually nobody knows whether or not I are doing it? Self righteous? In my experience, the temple promotes introspection, humility, love of my fellow man, and a desire to live a more Christian life. Obsessive adherence to strict rules and formalities? If anything, I should be faulted for the opposite -- thinking about it so seldom that I forget that I am wearing it. And if the temple language is open to “significant interpretation,” shouldn’t the interpretation be made by those authorized to speak for God in these matters? . 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Sometimes? Perhaps. But please explain how wearing “the garment both night and day” is, per se, pushing “into the mountain” or spiritually harmful (or otherwise bad). Other than the possibility of a little inconvenience or (horrors) not always being able to wear the latest clothing styles, what is the downside? As for “pharisaical,” how can my doing something be considered hypocritical if I believe that virtually nobody knows whether or not I are doing it? Self righteous? In my experience, the temple promotes introspection, humility, love of my fellow man, and a desire to live a more Christian life. Obsessive adherence to strict rules and formalities? If anything, I should be faulted for the opposite -- thinking about it so seldom that I forget that I am wearing it. And if the temple language is open to “significant interpretation,” shouldn’t the interpretation be made by those authorized to speak for God in these matters? . Anything that is taught as a commandment when it really isn't, is pushing into the mountain regardless of how harmless we think it may be. We are adding requireuemts to God's requirements and it's not justified. The prophet can do that if he chooses, but if that's the case he should change the covenent to reflect that change instead of telling us we've covenented to do something we actually haven't. When a bishop withholds a temple recommend from a person because they remove the garment to work in the yard, contrary to the (implied) covenants they've made, then there is a problem. It is pharasaical and harmful. The pharisees added rules upon rules upon rules. They were very legalistic and I think this is what Christ was trying to warn against because it engenders pride. We often become very legalistic in the church as well, usually in attempts to stay so far away from the edge that we push into the mountain with new, made up requirements. As far as who has the right to interpret vague temple language I would say that we all do. If it wasn't meant to be this way it wouldn't be vague. If it isn't intended to be vague it should be changed, otherwise we may be left with GA's adding their interpretations to what is taught but it is really just their interpretation and may only be a personal opinion.
Tacenda Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 http://mormonmatters.org/ #271:Speaking with Loved Ones about Faith Differences.... The panel consists of Dan Wotherspoon, John Dehlin (oh, the horror!) and Wendy Williams Montgomery (a mother of a gay son). In this episode they give excellent advice to those who leave and what not to do or what to do. Very good advice if I say so myself!! Should help marriages and family situations, keep the ties with those loved ones.
danielwoods Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Matthew 22:11-13 Rev. 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)"
JLHPROF Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)" Says who? Did John the Revelator come back and tell you what he meant when he said "Fine linen, bright and clean,was given her to wear"?
danielwoods Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Says who? Did John the Revelator come back and tell you what he meant when he said "Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear"? You can read it for yourself. It's a quote of Revelation 19.
JLHPROF Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 You can read it for yourself. It's a quote of Revelation 19. You mean "8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." So you take that to mean fine linen represents the righteous acts of the people but is not an actual garment?We agree with you except that it IS an actual garment.
danielwoods Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 You mean "8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." So you take that to mean fine linen represents the righteous acts of the people but is not an actual garment?We agree with you except that it IS an actual garment.I simply quoted the verse.The principle I use is to allow scripture to interpret scripture (where possible). Obviously, God looks at the heart, and the garments made by man are not ever mentioned as "required" wear for NT believers. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Anything that is taught as a commandment when it really isn't, is pushing into the mountain regardless of how harmless we think it may be. We are adding requireuemts to God's requirements and it's not justified. The prophet can do that if he chooses, but if that's the case he should change the covenent to reflect that change instead of telling us we've covenented to do something we actually haven't. When a bishop withholds a temple recommend from a person because they remove the garment to work in the yard, contrary to the (implied) covenants they've made, then there is a problem. It is pharasaical and harmful. The pharisees added rules upon rules upon rules. They were very legalistic and I think this is what Christ was trying to warn against because it engenders pride. We often become very legalistic in the church as well, usually in attempts to stay so far away from the edge that we push into the mountain with new, made up requirements. As far as who has the right to interpret vague temple language I would say that we all do. If it wasn't meant to be this way it wouldn't be vague. If it isn't intended to be vague it should be changed, otherwise we may be left with GA's adding their interpretations to what is taught but it is really just their interpretation and may only be a personal opinion. The Pharisees also looked for legalistic loopholes to get around the commandments. For example, Matt 15:3-9. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for using legalisms to create a loophole in the commandment to honor one’s father and mother. Even if you were correct about the temple covenants, we are not adding requirements to God’s commandments. A prophet -- authorized to speak for God -- added the requirement. If the bishop imposes requirements beyond those authorized by the prophet, I agree it is a problem. But a member telling the prophet that he ought to change the wording of a covenant would be even more of a problem. (I am not accusing you of doing that). As to your example (yard work without the garment), are you talking about wearing shorts and/or going shirtless? If so, I must confess I never really thought about it. For me, wearing a shirt and garments just seemed to be a natural choice. When I was younger, going shirtless while doing yard work would have been far more an exercise in pride than wearing the garment ever was. (These days, wearing a shirt while doing yard work is an exercise in loving my neighbor). “When a bishop withholds a temple recommend from a person because they remove the garment to work in the yard, … then there is a problem.” And if a member would rather not wear garments while doing yard work, than go to the temple, that is also a problem. Even if it turns out that the bishop was imposing a requirement beyond those authorized by the prophet. Harm? What harm? What is the harm of having to wear garments while doing yard work? A little discomfort? And if it be that the bishop has exceeded his authority in this area, the member can take his concerns to his stake president, and presumably further, if necessary. So, isn’t the bishop doing harm by exceeding his authority, thereby becoming a stumbling block for a ward member? This may be a legitimate concern. And, if true, it certainly should be corrected. On the other hand, it seems to me that anyone applying for a temple recommend should have reached a sufficient level of spiritual maturity to forgive minor offences. Even from those who should know better. As far as who has the right to interpret vague temple language I would say that we all doIf so, why is it necessary for the church to always defer to the interpretation of the member -- especially when it come to church covenants? For that matter, why bother having temple recommend interviews for those already endowed? Why not just a simple note stating that the member hasn’t been dis-fellowshipped or put on probation? Edited March 16, 2015 by Sleeper Cell
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 It must be heartbreaking for any parent who is strong in the church, to have one of their children if not more, leave the church. I've seen it happen to families in my ward where only the mother or father is still active and the spouse and all 5 or 6 children are inactive.
Calm Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 " (These days, wearing a shirt while doing yard work is an exercise in loving my neighbor"And protection against skin cancer.I have many friends and relatives around my age that are dealing with skin cancer. Not me because I went for glow in the dark skin all my life because few things were as boring as tanning...plus it would make me nauseated. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 (These days, wearing a shirt while doing yard work is an exercise in loving my neighbor).Great line. Love it! But a member telling the prophet that he ought to change the wording of a covenant would be even more of a problem. By having specific TR questions that refer to specific "covenanted" behaviors, which really weren't part of a covenant at all, it becomes an institutionalized pseudo-doctrine. Again, if it's important, then make it part of the covenant instead of just telling me it is, when it clearly isn't. why bother having temple recommend interviews for those already endowed? Interesting question. After receiving your own ordinances every temple activity is essentially a service project for others. Why limit the service opportunities by requiring continuing temple recommend interviews? A skeptical person might respond; control and tithing. 1
busybee Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I never thought about it. Unlike many people who leave the Church, I never lost faith or belief in God. I have never lost belief in God. So, when I left the Church, I had decided it was false. I guess I will find out what it takes to come back. I am hopeful The Church is as forgiving as God....and will let me come back. In a side note....a few years ago, when the pull started, I would go to Dallas Temple and just sit in the parking lot. Once, I even went into the foyer and sat in a chair. Just to feel it. Silly, huh?Not silly at all 3
busybee Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 but under that definition, I broke my temple vows.....I also debated on boards against the LDS Church. They wont let me backThat is not true. I can't remember the name of the man now ( I'm sure someone here can help), but he left the church in the early days and actively went about trying to destroy it. He had a change of heart and was welcomed back lovingly by Joseph Smith. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 17, 2015 Author Posted March 17, 2015 That is not true. I can't remember the name of the man now ( I'm sure someone here can help), but he left the church in the early days and actively went about trying to destroy it. He had a change of heart and was welcomed back lovingly by Joseph Smith. This is very true.I think people misunderstood the purpose of this thread. I was hoping to get some educated responses as to the severity of breaking one's temple covenants versus those undendowed people who leave.There has to be some difference or the covenants are little more than a joke. God takes them seriously and when they are broken it is more serious. So how is this manifested in reality? I was NOT looking to question anyone's ability to repent and return. ANYONE has the opportunity to repent (with just a couple of exceptions).
Calm Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) That is not true. I can't remember the name of the man now ( I'm sure someone here can help), but he left the church in the early days and actively went about trying to destroy it. He had a change of heart and was welcomed back lovingly by Joseph Smith.William W Phelps“Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, For friends at first, are friends again at last.”https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-34?lang=eng Edited March 17, 2015 by calmoriah 3
canard78 Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 Hi Mola,And nothing.Thanks for the reply.Don't worry... He's wrong. It's just that some Mormons need to leave the church to discover that the teaching about the Spirit abandoning them when they do is nonsense. http://testimoniesofotherfaiths.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1 3
Yirgacheffe Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 " (These days, wearing a shirt while doing yard work is an exercise in loving my neighbor"And protection against skin cancer.I have many friends and relatives around my age that are dealing with skin cancer. Not me because I went for glow in the dark skin all my life because few things were as boring as tanning...plus it would make me nauseated.Another glow int the dark person here who agrees with you about the boring and the nausea. Once during HS our little group tried tanning, I bailed to the shade first and played with the rocks along the side of the house soon to be joined by another then another. It took about 1/2 an hour before we were all bored and quit that was the one and only time I did tanning as an activity. Curiously I've never had a person who lays out in the sun as a close friend, nothing against them they we just don't seem to run in the same circles or have common activities.
Recommended Posts