Temple Grooming Standards

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I definitely advocate whatever makes me look better without any attempt whatsoever at fairness.  

I forgot the winky in my post. It was supposed to be humorous. It's heartening to see that when it comes to looking good, you will stop at nothing.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Its easy to be nonchalant when you're thousands of points in front of the pack. 

I suppose on this board that could be called Calm Privilege. It could be an interesting topic of a presentation at the next Sunstone Conference.

Past and new posters should be given 2,000 automatic reps just to make it competitive.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I forgot the winky in my post. It was supposed to be humorous. It's heartening to see that when it comes to looking good, you will stop at nothing.

Totally ruthless.   

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself open minded and willing to use critical thinking to evaluate my traditions - which is why I reject your position.  Don't assume that because I reject your position that I am not using critical thinking.  I am open to innovation and reconstruction; that is what the restoration is all about, but your critical analysis of temple symbols, ritual and ordinance is severely lacking any persuasive substance and evidence.  You have offered no "new tradition" that is "100 times" more valuable to replace the old with.  If you are going to claim the rational position based on critical thinking, please offer me something rational.

Most people consider themselves open minded, I can't recall ever meeting someone who self identified as closed minded.  I didn't attempt to offer specific replacement traditions for temple practice, but it wouldn't be hard to come up with good ideas that potentially have more value than current traditions.  I would recommend a very diverse panel could accomplish this.  I did point out some problems with current traditions, that seems to be appropriate for this thread, but going too much deeper there are many people much more qualified than I that would need to be involved in the process.  

This also applies to a common critique of Mormonism, that there really has never been a cohesive systematic theology for Mormonism, its more of a hodgepodge of all kinds of teachings, this applies to the temple as well.  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The thing that your critical analysis fails to acknowledge is that "value" IS subjective.  Symbols, ritual, and ordinances are spiritual and cannot be assessed through critical analysis of objective measures.  Wisdom is often lost in knowledge, and knowledge lost in information.  Spiritual practice requires spiritual assessment, any rational/critical thinker would acknowledge that.  You are using the WRONG tools to assess temple ritual, ordinance, and symbols.

I agree with you completely on this point, value is subjective, therefore it can't be proven through rational/critical thought, but it could be measured and voted on by common consent, and input could be gathered by a group of diverse people, and observations could be made, and symbolism could be forged through a more organized and methodological process.  I think your point about values being subjective actually strengthens my case for a re-evaluation of our traditions.  

I believe that you are making a faulty underlying assumption which is what most members also assume from my experience, and this assumption is that the existing traditions contain specific and divinely inspired wisdom, I believe this is why you're so resistant to and offended by my calls for reevaluation.  The problem is that nobody can produce any evidence for or measure what is divine about our current traditions, so they would prefer to just keep the status quo in place at the risk of changing something that was divinely inspired. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'll tell you what is irrational and unreasonable - dismissing the profound meaning and spirit that members experience with temple symbols and ritual, and doing away with such symbols and ritual because you suspect (without evidence) that there might be something better is reckless, careless, and entirely insensitive to human experience. 

Nope, I'm not dismissing or being insensitive, I validate and respect the experiences that people have.   

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I watched this show on Netflix last night called Innsae.  Really great documentary which speaks to the topic at hand.  It discusses the misuse/overuse of "critical thinking" and left brained activity to the neglect of right brained intuition.  It seems to me that you are completely out of touch with "the sea within."  Here is a link, it is worth a watch and might cause you to second guess your hard right brained approach to temple ritual.  There is nothing wrong with critical analysis, except when it extinguishes our intuition.

https://zeitgeistfilms.com/film/innsaeithepowerofintuition

Thanks for the link, I'll check this out, it sounds very interesting and I suspect that I'll largely agree with this based on your summary.  I think we may actually agree much more than you might think, however, unfortunately through the process of written communication it can be hard to get alignment of thought.  I appreciate the discussion though, and wish you well.  

 

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I get your perspective, I think many share this perspective, and I appreciate your defense of this perspective because it shows your commitment and trust in a system and love for that system.  However, I don't think you understand my perspective.  

I have a love and trust as well for the institution that has been the foundation of my religious affiliation and the heritage of my family for generations.  Even though you say that the status quo isn't necessarily the ideal, your approach is to accept it because you see no problems that rise to any level of importance in your mind that would justify change.  Just because you are blind to those issues, doesn't mean they don't exist.  

I have become, thanks to my willingness to question and my faith journey in recent years, able to break out of the fog of a complacent allegiance to the system, and to see things from a new perspective.  Now, I'm not proclaiming that all of my perspectives are superior to yours, no, I understand the limits of the human mind and the biases that plague us.  But what I am saying is that from where you are standing, your responses show your inability for objective critical thinking when it comes to constructive evaluation of our contemporary temple tradition.  

You are too invested from your current vantage point to allow for innovation and reconstruction.  You honestly can't even comprehend discarding traditions that you find valuable, even if a new tradition replacing the old were to provide 100 times more value, you would still hold onto the old tradition because of what it means to you.  Its an emotional position, and its understandable, but it is limiting you from seeing things differently.  You fail to see the harm and negative elements of the current system.  Your biases towards the system don't allow for that kind of objectivity.  

I've been mostly a silent observer to this conversation but I have a question that's been bothering me as you've posted. You keep talking about the potential for "new" traditions or drastic change and or reduction in emphasis of the temple for something better. My question is what, in your mind is this "better" model? It seems shortsighted to me to criticize a current system without really giving a constructive alternative to match up and then exceed the current system and meet up to the spiritual experience and growth seen with temple worship. 

The second is this appeal to objectivity. I see little to assume that somehow yours is more objective. Just because you've lost value in the temple doesn't equal an objective stand point is your new reality. Just as you see pogi ignoring/minimizing the negative or concerning aspects of the tradition, I've viewed you doing the same to the positive. That's hardly objective.

 

with luv,

BD

Edited February 8, 2017 by BlueDreams

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I've been mostly a silent observer to this conversation but I have a question that's been bothering me as you've posted. You keep talking about the potential for "new" traditions or drastic change and or reduction in emphasis of the temple for something better. My question is what, in your mind is this "better" model? It seems shortsighted to me to criticize a current system without really giving a constructive alternative to match up and then exceed the current system and meet up to the spiritual experience and growth seen with temple worship. 

The second is this appeal to objectivity. I see little to assume that somehow yours is more objective. Just because you've lost value in the temple doesn't equal an objective stand point is your new reality. Just as you see pogo ignoring/minimizing the negative or concerning aspects of the tradition, I've viewed you doing the same to the positive. That's hardly objective.

 

with luv,

BD

Good questions.  On the negative vs. positive question, I'm intentionally focused on the negative elements in this thread because that was the point of the OP.  I could point out many positives as well, but I think we can get to be an echo chamber if we all just focus on what we agree on, so for the sake of discussion I'm highlighting those areas where I disagree first and foremost.  

Do I have ideas about small things that could change in the temple an potentially be a net positive for the members?  Yes, I do.  The OP called out some potential concerns, I wanted to stick to those, but I have other ideas, I think the ceremonies are still sexist, I think they are too long and redundant, I think doing work for every human that ever lived is not strongly supported in our theology, I think the buildings are too expensive, I think there are too many buildings, I think the resources are poorly allocated, I think the practices of temple marriage ceremony only for members is divisive, I think the recommend interviews are manipulative and shame inducing.  I could go on, but I'm sure now that I mentioned a few things, people will try picking them apart, thats how I've noticed these discussions in the past, and part of why I hesitate to get into the details, when its the principle of re-evaluation that I want to promote, not necessarily the specifics.  

Oh, and just so I don't miss your call for a better model, I will tell you my top three ideas off the top of my head that I believe would reinvigorate the church.  1.  Make going to temple sealings open to everyone (non members could attend as well, no worthiness requirement to attend a sealing ceremony for weddings).  2.  Change the temple recommend interview significantly, make it mainly about a person's personal commitment to living gospel principles in their life, not about "worthiness".  3. Revamp the rituals, streamline, add insights, remove hurtful old perspectives and language, modernize, incorporate more scripture, remove more of the masonic language, put the focus more on Jesus and less on exaltation.    

 

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Most people consider themselves open minded, I can't recall ever meeting someone who self identified as closed minded.

If the measure of closed mindedness is based on how much I agree with your position.  Count me as closed minded.  It seems to me that to accuse other's of being closed minded for disagreeing with their position, is a rather closed minded position.  Again, I am happy to evaluate temple practices based on subjective measures, but where will that get us?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you completely on this point, value is subjective, therefore it can't be proven through rational/critical thought, but it could be measured and voted on by common consent, and input could be gathered by a group of diverse people, and observations could be made, and symbolism could be forged through a more organized and methodological process.  I think your point about values being subjective actually strengthens my case for a re-evaluation of our traditions.  

You are a moving target.  I thought this was supposed to be an "objective" evaluation based on "critical thinking".  You have accused me of being closed minded for not being able to objectively evaluate temple practices using critical thinking.  That I was too "emotionally" based, but now it seems that you agree with me.  Remember when you said this:

"...your responses show your inability for objective critical thinking when it comes to constructive evaluation of our contemporary temple tradition"

You have come my way quite a bit here.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe that you are making a faulty underlying assumption which is what most members also assume from my experience, and this assumption is that the existing traditions contain specific and divinely inspired wisdom, I believe this is why you're so resistant to and offended by my calls for reevaluation.  The problem is that nobody can produce any evidence for or measure what is divine about our current traditions, so they would prefer to just keep the status quo in place at the risk of changing something that was divinely inspired. 

That is not how this church works brother, that is not how the Lord works.  Common consent is when we sustain the revelations of the prophet.  Common consent is not having the congregation dictate revelation to the prophets.  You are trying to re-write Mormonism in neglect of all scripture and revelations.  Your position is completely out-of-sink with Mormonism. 

I would be willing to bet large sums of money that a large group of diverse active Mormons would sustain current temple practices and symbols.  I have no reason to believe that people are dissatisfied with the temple.  On the contrary, I have the witness of countless testimonies to the contrary - including my own.  It would be a pointless exercise.  Your assumptions of discontent is without basis.   

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by pogi

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good questions.  On the negative vs. positive question, I'm intentionally focused on the negative elements in this thread because that was the point of the OP.  I could point out many positives as well, but I think we can get to be an echo chamber if we all just focus on what we agree on, so for the sake of discussion I'm highlighting those areas where I disagree first and foremost.  

Do I have ideas about small things that could change in the temple an potentially be a net positive for the members?  Yes, I do.  The OP called out some potential concerns, I wanted to stick to those, but I have other ideas, I think the ceremonies are still sexist, I think they are too long and redundant, I think doing work for every human that ever lived is not strongly supported in our theology, I think the buildings are too expensive, I think there are too many buildings, I think the resources are poorly allocated, I think the practices of temple marriage ceremony only for members is divisive, I think the recommend interviews are manipulative and shame inducing.  I could go on, but I'm sure now that I mentioned a few things, people will try picking them apart, thats how I've noticed these discussions in the past, and part of why I hesitate to get into the details, when its the principle of re-evaluation that I want to promote, not necessarily the specifics.  

Oh, and just so I don't miss your call for a better model, I will tell you my top three ideas off the top of my head that I believe would reinvigorate the church.  1.  Make going to temple sealings open to everyone (non members could attend as well, no worthiness requirement to attend a sealing ceremony for weddings).  2.  Change the temple recommend interview significantly, make it mainly about a person's personal commitment to living gospel principles in their life, not about "worthiness".  3. Revamp the rituals, streamline, add insights, remove hurtful old perspectives and language, modernize, incorporate more scripture, remove more of the masonic language, put the focus more on Jesus and less on exaltation.    

 

 

 

Doesn't sound like the temple would really be a temple after your changes.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 put the focus more on Jesus and less on exaltation.   

The focus of the sacrament is on Jesus.  The focus of the temple is for those who have, through the power of the atonement, been cleansed of their sins through the power of His atonement and are worthy to enter his house.  It is those people who will receive exaltation and it would seem appropriate to focus on this in the temple.  This focus, however, does not in any way lessen or diminish the Savior or His atoning sacrifice of behalf of mankind.  The Savior and His atonement are central to all the rites and ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

[Jeanne]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good questions.  On the negative vs. positive question, I'm intentionally focused on the negative elements in this thread because that was the point of the OP.  I could point out many positives as well, but I think we can get to be an echo chamber if we all just focus on what we agree on, so for the sake of discussion I'm highlighting those areas where I disagree first and foremost.  

Do I have ideas about small things that could change in the temple an potentially be a net positive for the members?  Yes, I do.  The OP called out some potential concerns, I wanted to stick to those, but I have other ideas, I think the ceremonies are still sexist, I think they are too long and redundant, I think doing work for every human that ever lived is not strongly supported in our theology, I think the buildings are too expensive, I think there are too many buildings, I think the resources are poorly allocated, I think the practices of temple marriage ceremony only for members is divisive, I think the recommend interviews are manipulative and shame inducing.  I could go on, but I'm sure now that I mentioned a few things, people will try picking them apart, thats how I've noticed these discussions in the past, and part of why I hesitate to get into the details, when its the principle of re-evaluation that I want to promote, not necessarily the specifics.  

Oh, and just so I don't miss your call for a better model, I will tell you my top three ideas off the top of my head that I believe would reinvigorate the church.  1.  Make going to temple sealings open to everyone (non members could attend as well, no worthiness requirement to attend a sealing ceremony for weddings).  2.  Change the temple recommend interview significantly, make it mainly about a person's personal commitment to living gospel principles in their life, not about "worthiness".  3. Revamp the rituals, streamline, add insights, remove hurtful old perspectives and language, modernize, incorporate more scripture, remove more of the masonic language, put the focus more on Jesus and less on exaltation.    

 

 

 

What great and novel ideas..it makes it so that God's love and commitment to you is not conditional and I love that.  Of course, this commitment works both ways and one should be seriously devoted to becoming a better person and child of God.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:43 PM, BlueDreams said:

No, I think I still follow you, I just strongly disagree with it. Again, the general definition for pharisaic doesn't denote just having rules but having focusing on rules at the cost of the spirit or greater principles as taught by Christ. Rules....even a lot of them, are not enough to define a pharisaic attitude. They didn't just view it as a legalistic duty, according to the NT it was also a measuring stick for a sense of acceptability, while not only missing Christ but finding his teachings and position as a threat. That is not the attitude I find in the temple. I have the feeling that if Christ came down, said He wanted this or that rule changed...or even parts of the ordinances altered, the church leaders and temple presidency by the vast majority would immediately accept it and also immediately alter course to meet up to expectations.

Talking of your example. As I've mentioned, I did say that some do fall into a pharisaic mindset. But that was not your only position. It was whether or not there's correlation between Temple rules and a person's personal pharisaic attitude. So for your example here. This man chooses and promotes a one piece garment as the better garment for "extra spiritual protection." Is this enabled or promoted by the church? No, quite the opposite. The church gives all sorts of garment fabrics and a number of cuts trying to have a wider range for people's comfort and needs. What the church is doing goes absolutely against what this man is saying. There isn't even a scripture to back this up for him. He's made his preference somehow a spiritual principle.

The rules in and of themselves in the temple are not in someway seen as permanent, extra special, or absolutes. In the time I've worked there I have seen rules change. Most often to accommodate the comfort of the patrons, maintain the (literal...not spiritual) cleanliness of the temple, etc. That's not a super long time either....just under 4 years. And from temple to temple they vary. For example a worker who had moved into our district was surprised how often we in our temple would sit in our posts. In the temple she'd come from it was expected they stand at all times in similar posts. The provo temple never has spanish scriptures on hand while the Bountiful, draper, etc, definitely do. Though there are usually specific reasons given and they may have principles tied in to the gospel (Many are just for practical order or previous concerns) no one thinks that the policies themselves are somehow going to give an extra spiritual boost, make us more holy, or anything of that sort. We know they can change and do. And we are specifically and repeatedly told which is more important in regards to rule-following or spirit. The Spirit.

 

With luv,

BD

Actually, I never said that. I think it's an assumption which is at the root of the misunderstanding. But I won't beat the dead horse. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I've been mostly a silent observer to this conversation but I have a question that's been bothering me as you've posted. You keep talking about the potential for "new" traditions or drastic change and or reduction in emphasis of the temple for something better. My question is what, in your mind is this "better" model? It seems shortsighted to me to criticize a current system without really giving a constructive alternative to match up and then exceed the current system and meet up to the spiritual experience and growth seen with temple worship. 

The second is this appeal to objectivity. I see little to assume that somehow yours is more objective. Just because you've lost value in the temple doesn't equal an objective stand point is your new reality. Just as you see pogi ignoring/minimizing the negative or concerning aspects of the tradition, I've viewed you doing the same to the positive. That's hardly objective.

 

with luv,

BD

If I'm reading you correctly, you're asking how the church would focus it's practice and teachings if not on the model of the temple. The temple provides great meaning for many people and I'm not suggesting the temple is unimportant (even though I point out a few concerns with it and I would echo Hope's additional concerns). But in some ways it feels like the temple has become an idol within the church...a  very expensive graven image. The hyper activity around temple attendance, family history, indexing etc. is relatively new. In some ways it seems to have replaced the hyper activity around missionary work.

But you asked what model would be "better" than the temple focused model. I will simply point out that Jesus had an earthly ministry that was not centered on a temple model. The temple existed and was important and even revered, but it wasn't the "everything" of Jesus' teachings, practice, and daily life. Far from it. So if it wasn't Jesus' main focus, maybe there are some other areas in which we could appropriately refocus our attention as well.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not how this church works brother, that is not how the Lord works.  Common consent is when we sustain the revelations of the prophet.  Common consent is not having the congregation dictate revelation to the prophets.  You are trying to re-write Mormonism in neglect of all scripture and revelations.  Your position is completely out-of-sink with Mormonism. 

I would be willing to bet large sums of money that a large group of diverse active Mormons would sustain current temple practices and symbols.  I have no reason to believe that people are dissatisfied with the temple.  On the contrary, I have the witness of countless testimonies to the contrary - including my own.  It would be a pointless exercise.  Your assumptions of discontent is without basis.  

History is much more complicated on the issue.  In early Mormonism the interaction between members and leaders was much more involved and Joseph didn't come up with all his ideas independent of his environment, quite the contrary, he was borrowing from all kinds of sources external to the church.  Even in modern Mormonism many innovations such as our welfare program, or primary or the young adult program, all of these ideas came from the bottom up.  Grass roots revelation and innovation.  I think you know about these things, but haven't realized how they challenge your paradigm for top down revelation.  

As to the pulse of members being content with the temple traditions status quo, I think you underestimate the discontent of the membership at large about some of the issues I bring up.  It doesn't take a majority of opinion to push for changes to current policy.  I'm guessing that if you polled the entire membership base prior to the 1990 changes to temple ceremony, that you wouldn't have had more than 50% of the members asking for changes to be made, yet the leaders made changes anyway.  What about before the 1978 revelation, if you polled the membership would greater than 50% of the members have asked to give blacks the priesthood, I highly doubt it.  In our conservative organization, the members are trained to support the status quo, you are a great example of that training in action.  It doesn't take a majority to make changes happen.  When change does happen most members get on board with the new direction and consider it revelation and move forward.  This is a great strength and a weakness of Mormonism.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The focus of the sacrament is on Jesus.  The focus of the temple is for those who have, through the power of the atonement, been cleansed of their sins through the power of His atonement and are worthy to enter his house.  It is those people who will receive exaltation and it would seem appropriate to focus on this in the temple.  This focus, however, does not in any way lessen or diminish the Savior or His atoning sacrifice of behalf of mankind.  The Savior and His atonement are central to all the rites and ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Honestly, the doctrine of exaltation doesn't resonate with me personally, I had a problem with it even when I was an orthodox Mormon.  I never wanted to or felt like I should strive to become a God.  I don't fault those that do, but it never made sense to my sensibilities.  I like the concepts of eternal progression and eternal increase(not sure how this would work).  But I do think the gospel of Christ should be a focus on the principles of love of neighbor and feeding his sheep, literally and figuratively.  These are radical ideas, the foundation of the Christian message.  When Joseph said: 

Quote

The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

To me, this makes the doctrine of exaltation an appendage, and not central to the gospel program.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Doesn't sound like the temple would really be a temple after your changes.

It would be very different, but much better! 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

History is much more complicated on the issue.  In early Mormonism the interaction between members and leaders was much more involved and Joseph didn't come up with all his ideas independent of his environment, quite the contrary, he was borrowing from all kinds of sources external to the church.  Even in modern Mormonism many innovations such as our welfare program, or primary or the young adult program, all of these ideas came from the bottom up.  Grass roots revelation and innovation.  I think you know about these things, but haven't realized how they challenge your paradigm for top down revelation.  

None of this challenges the church's paradigm of top down revelation.  Revelation rarely occurs independent of environment and often validates ("borrows from") external sources.  I am simply pointing out that the law of "common consent" as explained in D&C 26 is not about roots up revelation as you suggest.  It is about sustaining top down revelation for the entire church as explained in D&C 28.  Only the prophet can receive revelation for the church.  This is as official as it gets; it is canonical doctrine by common consent.  I have no problem with the idea of the prophet being inspired by his environment to seek confirmation and revelation for the church on such issues, but the idea of forming a "group of diverse people" for the purpose of altering temple ordinances to appease the peoples wishes is not scriptural.  Your ideals are inspired by modernism, but the scriptures warn that the voice of the Lord's people is NOT equivalent to the voice of the Lord.  If such was the case, who knows, we may still have been worshipping golden calves to this day.  

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

In our conservative organization, the members are trained to support the status quo, you are a great example of that training in action.

I think you confuse my defense of temple practices as blind obedience - a brainless support of the status quo.  No, I have no problem with questioning the status quo.  I have no problem disagreeing with leaders of the church.  For me, it is ALL about personal revelation and direct communion and validation from God.  My problem with your approach of mutating the role of common consent is that it takes the mantle of the prophet and gives it to the people.  That is not canonical Mormonism.  I sustain the role of the prophets for a reason, and that reason is not because it is simply the status quo.  Change can be inspired from the ground up, but it can only be received by prophecy from the top down.  That process can understandably take time, and I am a patient man.  You are trying to force revelation and change, but that is antithetical to the process of revelation which requires introspection, quiet, reflection, and the time table of the Lord according to His will - not ours.  

Edited February 8, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It would be very different, but much better! 

...said the Israelites (golden calf)

Edited February 9, 2017 by pogi

[ksfisher]

59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly, the doctrine of exaltation doesn't resonate with me personally, I had a problem with it even when I was an orthodox Mormon.  I never wanted to or felt like I should strive to become a God.  I don't fault those that do, but it never made sense to my sensibilities.  I like the concepts of eternal progression and eternal increase(not sure how this would work).  But I do think the gospel of Christ should be a focus on the principles of love of neighbor and feeding his sheep, literally and figuratively.  These are radical ideas, the foundation of the Christian message.  When Joseph said: 

To me, this makes the doctrine of exaltation an appendage, and not central to the gospel program.  

Seems like if you look at it this way then there really is no need for a temple.  The rites and ordinances performed therein pertain to exaltation.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

...said the Israelites (golden calf).

Looks like you're transitioning from respectful disagreement to flippant condescension.  Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.  

I will say briefly in response to your other post, that I think you misread history around bottom up revelation.  I don't think that a regular member like me can make policy or doctrine changes for the church.  I do think that regular members can make suggestions, raise questions, implement programs and that when church leaders see the wisdom of these things, they are then open to revelation on the subject.  This scenario has been played out countless times in history and is well documented.   

On common consent, I think you're limiting the principle with your interpretation.  I think that the original purpose and intent of the principle isn't being practiced well in the current church, and we need to get back to how it was practiced earlier.  One more example of a need for change in our modern church.  

Lastly, I'm hopeful and not fearful about all these things.  I have high hopes that change can and will happen, that God will inspire people to open their minds to common sense ideas and the needs of people.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Seems like if you look at it this way then there really is no need for a temple.  The rites and ordinances performed therein pertain to exaltation.  

Perhaps we have a different vision for what the temple can be.  That's ok.  I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities.  I differ on the idea of exaltation, I think it's one of the excesses of Joseph during the Nauvoo period.  

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps we have a different vision for what the temple can be.  That's ok.  I like the idea of the temple as a place to unify, to worship God, to be a place of peace from the chaos in the world, to perform rituals that strengthen families and communities.  

You've just described sacrament meeting.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You've just described sacrament meeting.

Not quite the same in my mind, we don't do much ritual in sacrament meeting.  Also it's not as clear a separation from the world as the temple is.  

I think I can read between the lines on your comments now.  You're essentially saying "a bible a bible we have a bible and we need no more bible".   :-)  

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Not quite the same in my mind, we don't do much ritual in sacrament meeting. 

The sacrament?

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The sacrament?

I said we don't do much.  How does that compare to sealings, endowments, initiatory, baptisms and confirmations for the dead.  Like I said, not much.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Looks like you're transitioning from respectful disagreement to flippant condescension.  Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.   

I can see now why my remark might be interpreted that way.  My apologies, it was intended more as competitive and playful banter or sarcasm to accentuate my point.  No disrespect. I added a couple emojis to make it more clear.

Edited February 9, 2017 by pogi