Precision Of Revelation Process

[HappyJackWagon]

I've seen a bit of conflict lately on the interwebs about how revelation is received.

 

It seems as if some expect God to appear in the temple and tell the prophet who the next apostles should be. Others believe the 1st Presidency and Q12 will study out the possibilities based on strengths, weaknesses, needs of the church etc and then pray about it, get confirmation and then move forward. It's a very different perception for HOW revelation works in the church. Personally I see the process of seeking new apostles to be similar to how a ward or stake seeks to fill a position. I have never seen a bishop or stake president pray without giving any thought to the question and having a unknown name pop into their head. So I find it hard to believe it would work this way for the prophet either.

 

Again, in my experience revelation just isn't that precise. But that got me thinking about the most precise revelation we have and how we received that. I'm thinking specifically of the temple ordinances. The ordinances are very specific and must be done with precision or they must be redone. We are familiar with the precision of the sacrament and baptismal prayers and we can find those in our scriptures, but not temple ordinances.

 

I'm curious if there are any sources for the revelation of the temple ordinances? How did we receive them? Was a revelation received? There have been many changes over the years (some quite significant). Is there revelation for these changes? I'm curious because the temple ordinances, which I suppose we all accept as revealed knowledge, are extremely precise and detailed. Where does that detail come from? Why are other revelations so vague in comparison?

 

(In keeping with board rules it is important we don't share specific language of the temple which would violate covenants about revealing signs and tokens)

Edited July 20, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Duncan]

It seems to be a variety of ways. You recall Pres. Grant called Elder Melvin Ballard, a man who he barely knew. I recall reading about how Pres. Packer was called, someone gave Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith a list and he went through it until he came across Pres. Packer's name-was there more to that story? I have no idea but I think they deliberate and wittle down the list and the Prophet takes the name to the Lord and yay or nay. Or as I say some other process happens where maybe the Lord does tell the Prophet and eliminate the deliberating, I think that's what happened with Pres. Grant and Elder George Teasdale

Edited July 20, 2015 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

Duncan, this fits with my perspective as well. They study it out. They probably review current general authority profiles, seek recommendations and then work from there. Expecting a completely unknown name to be whispered in their ear or revealed through a physical visitation seems very unlikely, though anything is possible.

 

Some people seem to be upset by the idea of choosing a minority as if it would only be a token done for PR purposes, but to me it seems like diversity could be a valid consideration in choosing replacements.

 

Any thoughts about the precision of temple ordinances and revelation?

[KevinG]

I think changes to the temple ordinances are probably thought out too.  Most revelation is the result of us seeking to reflect the Spirit of God, and asking for confirmation.  We "see through a glass but darkly".

 

Regarding the temple changes.  As someone who has lived through a few versions of the Temple ceremonies, the principles and covenants are the same, but the language used to describe them has sometimes been updated to better communicate to a modern audience than using the language and symbolism of a 19th century agrarian audience. 

[JAHS]

 

Steven R Covey explained it in general terms:

 

"The restoration of the temple ordinances was really a process rather than an event. The Lord gave these ordinances to the Prophet Joseph Smith through a series of revelations from 1836 to 1843, "line upon line" and "precept upon precept." For example, only a small part of the temple ceremony was administered in the Kirtland Temple, and no ordinances for the dead were ever performed there.

But after the Church was established in Nauvoo, Illinois, the Lord said, "I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; . . . for therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory. . . . And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people; for I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world . . . that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life" (D&C 124:31, 34, 40–41, 55; emphasis added). (SIX EVENTS by Stephen R. Covey)

 

I don't think the temple ceremony script was revealed word for word to Joseph Smith. I tend to think that some general concepts were revealed to him about what the endowment should cover and then the temple ordinance ceremony was written based on those requirements to teach the concepts and cause membrs to make certain covenants. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

 

 

I don't think the temple ceremony script was revealed word for word to Joseph Smith. I tend to think that some general concepts were revealed to him about what the endowment should cover and then the temple ordinance ceremony was written based on those requirements to teach the concepts and cause membrs to make certain covenants. 

 

I agree. Why then do we treat the language and symbolism as the literal highest form of knowledge we can attain? If an ordinance isn't done perfectly it must be done again. Why would this be the case if it wasn't precisely received from God? It seems strange that we would place so much importance on precision to something that isn't precisely from God.

[Duncan]

I agree. Why then do we treat the language and symbolism as the literal highest form of knowledge we can attain? If an ordinance isn't done perfectly it must be done again. Why would this be the case if it wasn't precisely received from God? It seems strange that we would place so much importance on precision to something that isn't precisely from God.

 

well, symbolism can mean anything to anyone. My Mum tells of a lady who was told when she went to the Temple she would be getting meat. Well, she was upset she wasn't given a slab of beef and bacon. I think we know people can attend the Temple but get nothing out of it whereas others can have rich spiritual experiences, guess it depends on a variety of things.

[JAHS]

I agree. Why then do we treat the language and symbolism as the literal highest form of knowledge we can attain? If an ordinance isn't done perfectly it must be done again. Why would this be the case if it wasn't precisely received from God? It seems strange that we would place so much importance on precision to something that isn't precisely from God.

I think it's just to be certain that everyone is consistantly given the exact same information and make the exact same covenants as everyone else. One missed word could make a big difference.  I do think that once a temple ordinance script is decided on or changed, revealtion is received that it is what God's wants it to be and therefore should be followed exactly.

[mapman]

I don't know that I have a really good answer about the specific wording in ordinances, but I think there is evidence that Joseph Smith did a fair bit of thinking and studying before instituting the endowment. He didn't usually emphasize the process that went into his revelation, and so Mormons have always tended to think of him receiving detailed revelation spontaneously. However, we know that we must study it out in our minds before receiving revelation. Joseph Smith wasn't so much restoring the church from ground up, more like bringing back together fragmented and scattered truths. With the endowment, I think that it is clear that a lot of it was inspired by the Bible. Almost everything in the endowment is found in the Bible. I think Hebrews was an especially important inspiration for the endowment. The endowment is essentially a latter-day Christian version of the ancient Israelite Day of Atonement as described in Hebrews 9. All the ceremonial clothing is described in the Old Testament as well. It seems that Joseph Smith studied freemasonry as well to receive the form of the endowment.

Terryl Givens has a great paper that explains how Joseph Smith was uniting fragmented truths instead of spontaneously receiving truths out of heaven.

[Calm]

"The ordinances are very specific and must be done with precision or they must be redone. We are familiar with the precision of the sacrament and baptismal prayers and we can find those in our scriptures, but not temple ordinances."

But leeway is given many times when a sincere effort is made and it seems unlikely to achieve that desired percision so i see that percision as an ideal that is sought but if not always achieved, it is still acceptable to the Lord.

For example, if a young man stumbles over the Sacrament prayers several times, Bishops are allowed to accept them iirc. If a name is given wrong in a baptism or confirmation and it isn't discovered until later, they do not always redo the ordinance nor does it invalidate any ordinance done after that.

Individuals who are not able to fully perform movements in the temple through physical limitation are still allowed to participate.

As far as being redone if there is any error in the temple ordinances, we are dealing with human beings. There are likely quite a number of errors each time there is a session. If not a verbal error, definitely an error of understanding. However, attempting perfection in the ordinances is, imo, to indicate our commitment to aligning our will perfectly with God's...that is worth the effort.

Requiring precision also requires awareness and not just operating on auto pilot or out of habit. With repetition there comes familiarity and that often leads to carelessness because one assumes one knows already what to do. Precision keeps us (or should) focused on what we are doing and not drifting off into other places in our thoughts. Hopefully such focus will in time bring greater spiritual awareness.

Edited July 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One more thought. In the past, temple offerings were required to be without blemish. An external sign for the intended goal for one's internal state. To attempt to perform the ordinance "without blemish" is another symbol of the ultimate purity with God we are seeking, a pure sacrifice of ourselves we lay on His altar.

[HappyJackWagon]

One more thought. In the past, temple offerings were required to be without blemish. An external sign for the intended goal for one's internal state. To attempt to perform the ordinance "without blemish" is another symbol of the ultimate purity with God we are seeking, a pure sacrifice of ourselves we lay on His altar.

But the point is we're attempting to perform "without blemish" something that is very specific as if it were directly revealed from God, when there is no real indication or source for such a revelation. So the /precision/perfection is based on man's requirement, not God's

[Duncan]

Something I would like to know is how John H. Vandenberg's name came up to be the Presiding Bishop in 1961. He was not a member of the existing Presiding Bishop but all of a sudden he was now the PB-I would be interested to know that!

[JAHS]

Something I would like to know is how John H. Vandenberg's name came up to be the Presiding Bishop in 1961. He was not a member of the existing Presiding Bishop but all of a sudden he was now the PB-I would be interested to know that!

He was a business man and before being called as the Presiding Bishop he served as vice chairman of the Church Building Committee in charge of finance, a position he held for six years.  His experience as a business man and church building committee may have had something to do with it.

[Duncan]

He was a business man and before being called as the Presiding Bishop he served as vice chairman of the Church Building Committee in charge of finance, a position he held for six years.  His experience as a business man and church building committee may have had something to do with it.

 

do you have inside info? how do you know this?!

[Stargazer]

I don't think the temple ceremony script was revealed word for word to Joseph Smith. I tend to think that some general concepts were revealed to him about what the endowment should cover and then the temple ordinance ceremony was written based on those requirements to teach the concepts and cause membrs to make certain covenants. 

 

 

I was kind of inclining to the notion that the temple ceremony was revealed line upon line, in the sense that the Book of Mormon was dictated.  But after consideration I think I would agree with you, JAHS.  It is the covenants that are important, and not the window dressing of the ceremony -- not that the ceremony is not important, because I believe that the presentation of the endowment, for example, is important in learning. 

 

One of the things that helps convince me of this is the internal playlet involving three named individuals who were not yet born into mortality, but who show up and physically interact with Adam and Eve.  They cannot literally have done the things they are shown to have done.  They are therefore only present for instruction and nothing more.  Kind of reminds me vaguely of Audie Murphy's book about his experiences in WW2.  There is one character with whom he interacts and who participates in the action, but who is fictitious and apparently intended to act as a foil or part of the story's backdrop in order to help Murphy to tell his story.

[JAHS]

do you have inside info? how do you know this?!

 

Well if you believe the Deseret News this is where I got it:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/230219/ELDER-JOHN-H-VANDENBERG-DIES-AT-87-SERVED-AS-PRESIDING-BISHOP-11--YEARS.html?pg=all

 

"In 1961, he was called to serve as presiding bishop of the church. He described this calling as one of the greatest surprises and thrills of his life."

 

So it was a surprise to him.

Edited July 21, 2015 by JAHS

[JAHS]

I was kind of inclining to the notion that the temple ceremony was revealed line upon line, in the sense that the Book of Mormon was dictated.  But after consideration I think I would agree with you, JAHS.  It is the covenants that are important, and not the window dressing of the ceremony -- not that the ceremony is not important, because I believe that the presentation of the endowment, for example, is important in learning. 

 

One of the things that helps convince me of this is the internal playlet involving three named individuals who were not yet born into mortality, but who show up and physically interact with Adam and Eve.  They cannot literally have done the things they are shown to have done.  They are therefore only present for instruction and nothing more.  Kind of reminds me vaguely of Audie Murphy's book about his experiences in WW2.  There is one character with whom he interacts and who participates in the action, but who is fictitious and apparently intended to act as a foil or part of the story's backdrop in order to help Murphy to tell his story.

Yes the Temple endowment ceremony is most certainly all symbolic. A large percentage of the things happening in it did not really happen. Their purpose is solely used as instruction and to facilitate the taking of covenants by the participants. 

[phaedrus ut]

The ban on blacks was the most obvious moral question facing the church in the 20th century. If there were any precision in revelation it wouldn't have taken until June 1978. 

 

 

Phaedrus 

[canard78]

I've seen a bit of conflict lately on the interwebs about how revelation is received.

It seems as if some expect God to appear in the temple and tell the prophet who the next apostles should be. Others believe the 1st Presidency and Q12 will study out the possibilities based on strengths, weaknesses, needs of the church etc and then pray about it, get confirmation and then move forward. It's a very different perception for HOW revelation works in the church. Personally I see the process of seeking new apostles to be similar to how a ward or stake seeks to fill a position. I have never seen a bishop or stake president pray without giving any thought to the question and having a unknown name pop into their head. So I find it hard to believe it would work this way for the prophet either.

Again, in my experience revelation just isn't that precise. But that got me thinking about the most precise revelation we have and how we received that. I'm thinking specifically of the temple ordinances. The ordinances are very specific and must be done with precision or they must be redone. We are familiar with the precision of the sacrament and baptismal prayers and we can find those in our scriptures, but not temple ordinances.

I'm curious if there are any sources for the revelation of the temple ordinances? How did we receive them? Was a revelation received? There have been many changes over the years (some quite significant). Is there revelation for these changes? I'm curious because the temple ordinances, which I suppose we all accept as revealed knowledge, are extremely precise and detailed. Where does that detail come from? Why are other revelations so vague in comparison?

(In keeping with board rules it is important we don't share specific language of the temple which would violate covenants about revealing signs and tokens)

There's an assumption that the temple ordinance was received in a big stream of revelation. As a result people get upset when it is chanced.

The problem is, that's starting from the wrong place. The endowment is a ceremony and living parable that teaches us important principles.

I'll dig out a quote on this that shows the creation by Joseph and Brigham was far more organic than people today would imagine. If they realised that, they should also feel comfortable with it continuing to grow and evolve in response to the needs and cultural contexts of the participants.

Edit:

Here we go:

Discussing the Endowment:

"Bro[ther] Joseph [smith] turned to me [brigham Young] and said: “Brother Brigham this is not arranged right, but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this mat[t]er in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” I did so and each time I got something more; so that when we went through the Temple at Nauvoo, I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct."

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N04_35.pdf

And on the endowment as a living parable:

In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic entrance into the presence of God. The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic. When they are understood, they will help each person recognize truth and grow spiritually.

http://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-5-learning-from-the-lord-through-symbols?lang=eng

I don't want to be overly specific but I see the recent changes in the temple video (their change of emphasis, not script) to be another small step in the continual evolution of the ceremony to make it more suitable for its participants.

Edited July 21, 2015 by canard78

[HappyJackWagon]

The presentation of the endowment is interesting because there is so much emphasis placed on both symbolism and the idea that this endowment of information is essential for exaltation. So we try to glean every ounce of meaning that we can which leads us to look for symbolic meaning in the most mundane parts of the presentation. We treat it as if everything is exactly what God wants us to know that we impose our own meaning on perceived symbols.

[The Nehor]

I believe in revelation from small impressions up to audible voices to angelic visitations to theophanies. I see more of the beginning of the list but God can communicate as he wishes.

 

The Temple ceremony is a fantastic method of hiding truths. I have never seen an apostate able to reveal its secrets beyond reciting the words and a bare outline of the actual ceremony. I suspect they lose that knowledge when they leave.

[Duncan]

I believe in revelation from small impressions up to audible voices to angelic visitations to theophanies. I see more of the beginning of the list but God can communicate as he wishes.

 

The Temple ceremony is a fantastic method of hiding truths. I have never seen an apostate able to reveal its secrets beyond reciting the words and a bare outline of the actual ceremony. I suspect they lose that knowledge when they leave.

 

 

I can tell you a story but it's kinda long

[The Nehor]

I can tell you a story but it's kinda long

Deep Thought, by Jack Handy:

Once when I was in Hawaii, on the island of Kauai, I met a mysterious old stranger. He said he was about to die and wanted to tell someone about the treasure. I said, "Okay, as long as it's not a long story. Some of us have a plane to catch, you know." He started telling his story, about the treasure and his life and all, and I thought: "This story isn't too long." But then, he kept going, and I started thinking, "Uh-oh, this story is getting long." But then the story was over, and I said to myself: "You know, that story wasn't too long after all." I forget what the story was about, but there was a good movie on the plane. It was a little long, though.

[Thinking]

On a lighter note: Perhaps President Hinckley misunderstood the inspiration which led to the one earring in each ear utterance. Maybe the men are allowed one earring in each ear and the women are allowed none.