How do you think the temple recommend requirements will change 50 years from now?

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear a lot of people say that but I'm not sure I get it. There is much I don't understand about the initiatory. Particularly, why are there so many physical blessings given when it is being done by proxy for the dead. The focus on physical blessings is very strange for individuals who will presumably receive perfected bodies.

 

It's difficult to talk about outside of the temple, but my understanding of the temple experience (and this is just mine) is that it can be understood as the story of one person; spanning from premortal life to exaltation.  The initiatory comes before the creation.  The last thing that "the person" experiences in the initiatory is directly linked (again, in my mind) to the first thing that person experiences in the creation.  I kind of think of the initiatory as a Father's blessing to a child that's going away for awhile.  Like I said, this is just my way of thinking about things. 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's difficult to talk about outside of the temple, but my understanding of the temple experience (and this is just mine) is that it can be understood as the story of one person; spanning from premortal life to exaltation.  The initiatory comes before the creation.  The last thing that "the person" experiences in the initiatory is directly linked (again, in my mind) to the first thing that person experiences in the creation.  I kind of think of the initiatory as a Father's blessing to a child that's going away for awhile.  Like I said, this is just my way of thinking about things. 

Thanks for your response. I can understand that progression from a narrative approach but it doesn't make much sense from an approach of salvific ordinances. Again, the majority of initiatory blessings (IIRC) are physical blessings with some tie-in to spiritual. Of course, after death, those physical blessings don't mean much.

I understand your hesitancy to talk about temple things but I'm curious if you think there is really anything in the initiatory that should not be discussed outside the temple. I don't recall any instruction and definitely no covenant not to discuss those things. It seems like discussions about actual temple experiences and teachings could help to broaden and deepen understanding of temple worship.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So did Peter until the Savior explained why it was necessary that He wash Peter's feet.

I don't think you're following, I like the idea of washing with feet.  I don't like what I've read about the 2nd anointing ritual.  Washing of feet is a part of that ritual, but only a select few have had that performed in modern times although it was more common in the early Mormon church.  

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I love the initiatory... as an ordinance worker every week for six years, it was my favorite.  You'd be surprised apparently at the Spirit felt as the sisters received the initiatory blessings on behalf of their deceased family.  One sister that used to attend every week would kiss each card upon completion of the ordinances.  Tears filled her eyes more than once when the Spirit was particularly strong.  It was a real work of love for her family...

And, I can remember 21 years ago how I felt when the initiatory blessings were pronounced for me...  sometimes when I attend the temple I take time to do some initiatories just to hear the blessings again...

GG

Again, I agree.
But again, I see more and more of HJW thinking among members.  IE:

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear a lot of people say that but I'm not sure I get it. There is much I don't understand about the initiatory. Particularly, why are there so many physical blessings given when it is being done by proxy for the dead. The focus on physical blessings is very strange for individuals who will presumably receive perfected bodies.

The endowment could be shortened significantly by simply reducing redundancy. It has been altered so much already, I think they could whittle the non-essentials down to 1 hour pretty easily.

 
And the Church does have a history of changing the temple ordinances to make members more comfortable.  Heaven forbid we endure a bit of discomfort to receive a blessing.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, I agree.
But again, I see more and more of HJW thinking among members.  IE:

 
And the Church does have a history of changing the temple ordinances to make members more comfortable.  Heaven forbid we endure a bit of discomfort to receive a blessing.

I don't think I said anything to imply that the initiatory makes me uncomfortable. What I said is, it doesn't make sense. I don't understand it.

What good is a blessing for good health and strength after a person has already died? It's not logical. What is the purpose? The initiatory has changed dramatically over the years. Bathing in scented whisky has been replaced with anointing various body parts with oil to what we have now where only the head is anointed and other areas are referenced. These changes seem very good to me and I see no reason why more couldn't be made. But I'd still like to know the purpose of it in regards to physical blessings for the deceased. The blessings seem purely symbolic with no expectation of a real life benefit being realized. So why have it at all? To give the garment? That part isn't even part of the initiatory. It's an instruction after the initiatory is complete.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think I said anything to imply that the initiatory makes me uncomfortable. What I said is, it doesn't make sense. I don't understand it.

What good is a blessing for good health and strength after a person has already died? It's not logical. What is the purpose? The initiatory has changed dramatically over the years. Bathing in scented whisky has been replaced with anointing various body parts with oil to what we have now where only the head is anointed and other areas are referenced. These changes seem very good to me and I see no reason why more couldn't be made. But I'd still like to know the purpose of it in regards to physical blessings for the deceased. The blessings seem purely symbolic with no expectation of a real life benefit being realized. So why have it at all? To give the garment? That part isn't even part of the initiatory. It's an instruction after the initiatory is complete.

You assume that this life is the only one where those blessings are needed.
But there goes my Adam-God side again...

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You assume that this life is the only one where those blessings are needed.
But there goes my Adam-God side again...

True. I'm taking the plain teaching about a resurrected body over the speculative doctrine about Adam God and multiple probationary states. You got me  

[Garden Girl]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, I agree.
But again, I see more and more of HJW thinking among members.  IE:

I think there needs to be more/deeper teaching in the temple prep classes... then members need to individually study more about temple symbolism, ancient temple worship (think Nibley's book  "Temple and Cosmos"), various papers like Tvedtnes' "Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices," or Hilton's "The Hand as a Cup in Ancient Temple Worship."  The more we study and learn, the more we come to understand and appreciate our temple ordinances...  

GG

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I think there needs to be more/deeper teaching in the temple prep classes... then members need to individually study more about temple symbolism, ancient temple worship (think Nibley's book  "Temple and Cosmos"), various papers like Tvedtnes' "Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices," or Hilton's "The Hand as a Cup in Ancient Temple Worship."  The more we study and learn, the more we come to understand and appreciate our temple ordinances...  

GG

As long as the idea persists, that we aren't supposed to talk about what happens inside the temple, then we will never learn. Where can we have those discussions? In church? No. In the temple? Barely. We can talk in the celestial room for 10 minutes before we are shooed off so the next group can come in. Can we ask temple workers or presidency about the symbolism? We can ask, but aside from the most basic, obvious stuff, they won't teach about the symbolism because it is meant for "personal" study, pondering, and prayer. So the temple becomes this kind of ultimate form of worship that is an island unto itself and doesn't allow for deeper understandings beyond mere personal speculation.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I think there needs to be more/deeper teaching in the temple prep classes... then members need to individually study more about temple symbolism, ancient temple worship (think Nibley's book  "Temple and Cosmos"), various papers like Tvedtnes' "Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices," or Hilton's "The Hand as a Cup in Ancient Temple Worship."  The more we study and learn, the more we come to understand and appreciate our temple ordinances...

GG

Agreed.  Better and more detailed temple prep should be available.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as the idea persists, that we aren't supposed to talk about what happens inside the temple, then we will never learn. Where can we have those discussions? In church? No. In the temple? Barely. We can talk in the celestial room for 10 minutes before we are shooed off so the next group can come in. Can we ask temple workers or presidency about the symbolism? We can ask, but aside from the most basic, obvious stuff, they won't teach about the symbolism because it is meant for "personal" study, pondering, and prayer. So the temple becomes this kind of ultimate form of worship that is an island unto itself and doesn't allow for deeper understandings beyond mere personal speculation.

Also agreed.
There should be a place in the Church where endowed members are allowed to gather that has been dedicated for that purpose where respectful discussion and lessons of the doctrines and ordinances of the temple can occur.  Even if these meetings were held in an assembly room at each temple, endowed members from each stake and district could gather with recommends and learn more.
The Temple President and Matron could lead a class once a month or even once a quarter for each stake.

The fact that none exists lead each member to come to their own conclusions.  This leads to a lot of false beliefs, misunderstandings, and worst of all, a lot of people who never give the ordinance any real thought.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Agreed.  Better and more detailed temple prep should be available.

Also agreed.
There should be a place in the Church where endowed members are allowed to gather that has been dedicated for that purpose where respectful discussion and lessons of the doctrines and ordinances of the temple can occur.  Even if these meetings were held in an assembly room at each temple, endowed members from each stake and district could gather with recommends and learn more.
The Temple President and Matron could lead a class once a month or even once a quarter for each stake.

The fact that none exists lead each member to come to their own conclusions.  This leads to a lot of false beliefs, misunderstandings, and worst of all, a lot of people who never give the ordinance any real thought.

When I was serving as bishop I asked the Temple President, who I know fairly well, if we could have this type of a meeting in the temple where these things could be presented by a member of the temple presidency and discussed openly among the worthy temple attenders. I thought it was a brilliant idea but I got shut down fast and hard. I was even told it was an inappropriate request because the temple wasn't meant to be a place for firesides or discussion.

I was shocked. Apparently the temple isn't meant to be a place of learning so much as a place for personal speculation. I came away from this exchange believing that the Temple Presidency really doesn't know anything more than the rest of us and that there likely aren't any real answers beyond personal speculation. I find that both intriguing but also unsettling.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When I was serving as bishop I asked the Temple President, who I know fairly well, if we could have this type of a meeting in the temple where these things could be presented by a member of the temple presidency and discussed openly among the worthy temple attenders. I thought it was a brilliant idea but I got shut down fast and hard. I was even told it was an inappropriate request because the temple wasn't meant to be a place for firesides or discussion.

I was shocked. Apparently the temple isn't meant to be a place of learning so much as a place for personal speculation. I came away from this exchange believing that the Temple Presidency really doesn't know anything more than the rest of us and that there likely aren't any real answers beyond personal speculation. I find that both intriguing but also unsettling.

That's always been the story told for me...you have to go consistently for 50-60 years and then you start to understand what its all about, or something.  We'll I have a ways to go before I get there, I guess.  Maybe I'll die early and bypass all this learning by sitting there and not talking to anyone but listening to the same old stuff and repeating the same lines. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When I was serving as bishop I asked the Temple President, who I know fairly well, if we could have this type of a meeting in the temple where these things could be presented by a member of the temple presidency and discussed openly among the worthy temple attenders. I thought it was a brilliant idea but I got shut down fast and hard. I was even told it was an inappropriate request because the temple wasn't meant to be a place for firesides or discussion.

I was shocked. Apparently the temple isn't meant to be a place of learning so much as a place for personal speculation. I came away from this exchange believing that the Temple Presidency really doesn't know anything more than the rest of us and that there likely aren't any real answers beyond personal speculation. I find that both intriguing but also unsettling.

 

On this we agree.  And you may be right about the Temple Presidency's understanding.  Kind of like how ward members like to have the 18 year old missionaries teach.  Knowledge isn't automatic to position.
But I agree that there would be serious concerns about such a meeting.
People cannot keep their mouths shut.  The sacred could be very easily profaned.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

On this we agree.  And you may be right about the Temple Presidency's understanding.  Kind of like how ward members like to have the 18 year old missionaries teach.  Knowledge isn't automatic to position.
But I agree that there would be serious concerns about such a meeting.
People cannot keep their mouths shut.  The sacred could be very easily profaned.

If something is too sacred and holy to know, I've got to think it's not as important as we think it is.

There are beautiful meeting rooms in some temples, especially some of the earlier temples. Now they sit empty and useless.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When I was serving as bishop I asked the Temple President, who I know fairly well, if we could have this type of a meeting in the temple where these things could be presented by a member of the temple presidency and discussed openly among the worthy temple attenders. I thought it was a brilliant idea but I got shut down fast and hard. I was even told it was an inappropriate request because the temple wasn't meant to be a place for firesides or discussion.

I was shocked. Apparently the temple isn't meant to be a place of learning so much as a place for personal speculation. I came away from this exchange believing that the Temple Presidency really doesn't know anything more than the rest of us and that there likely aren't any real answers beyond personal speculation. I find that both intriguing but also unsettling.

We actually did this in the Provo temple before going through a session.  My understanding is it was a frequent occurrence with that bishop.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

We actually did this in the Provo temple before going through a session.  My understanding is it was a frequent occurrence with that bishop.

That would be wonderful.
I have had private discussions with endowed friends and have received so much perspective and new ways of looking at the endowment.
It would be wonderful to be able to do that in an authorized session presided over by those in authority on the ordinances.
 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If something is too sacred and holy to know, I've got to think it's not as important as we think it is.

There are beautiful meeting rooms in some temples, especially some of the earlier temples. Now they sit empty and useless.

Not too sacred and holy to know.  Too sacred and holy to cast before swine.
When you've got idiots sneaking cameras into temples and posting videos on youtube, can you really expect the most sacred things in our religion to be discussed where they might be revealed to the public.
But again, I agree with you.
We don't stop giving endowments because some one posts them online.  And we shouldn't stop teaching about the endowment because somebody will inevitably post those teachings online too.

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/13/2017 at 9:26 AM, hope_for_things said:

How?  I'm not proposing a stop to the ordinances in temples. 

The suggestion that the temple should allow non-LDS in and do away with the temple recommend would turn each temple into a ward building.  Might as well just sell the current temples and put the ordinances in ward buildings. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When I was serving as bishop I asked the Temple President, who I know fairly well, if we could have this type of a meeting in the temple where these things could be presented by a member of the temple presidency and discussed openly among the worthy temple attenders. I thought it was a brilliant idea but I got shut down fast and hard. I was even told it was an inappropriate request because the temple wasn't meant to be a place for firesides or discussion.

I was shocked. Apparently the temple isn't meant to be a place of learning so much as a place for personal speculation. I came away from this exchange believing that the Temple Presidency really doesn't know anything more than the rest of us and that there likely aren't any real answers beyond personal speculation. I find that both intriguing but also unsettling.

I had a Bishop who was more than willing to share his views about the Temple. He told other YSA what goes on before they actually went, it freaked people out and the Stake President told him to keep his yap shut. I agree, I wish we could talk more about things in the Temple and from people who know what they are talking about and all this higgledy piggledy from people like that Bishop

 

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Duncan

[Garden Girl]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

I had a Bishop who was more than willing to share his views about the Temple. He told other YSA what goes on before they actually went, it freaked people out and the Stake President told him to keep his yap shut. I agree, I wish we could talk more about things in the Temple and from people who know what they are talking about and all this higgledy piggledy from people like that Bishop

I can't imagine anyone being "freaked out" by any of the temple ordinances... wonder what in the world he told them..

GG

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I can't imagine anyone being "freaked out" by any of the temple ordinances... wonder what in the world he told them..

GG

I think they were freaked out because he was talking about it, not what he said.

I have had lessons and meetings that go much more deeply into the Temple but only in cases where only those who had been through were there.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The suggestion that the temple should allow non-LDS in and do away with the temple recommend would turn each temple into a ward building.  Might as well just sell the current temples and put the ordinances in ward buildings. 

Excellent idea!

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Garden Girl said:

I can't imagine anyone being "freaked out" by any of the temple ordinances... wonder what in the world he told them..

GG

The iniatory was pretty concerning to many until about a decade ago.  Prior to 1990 many people found the endowment disturbing.  There's really nothing left now that could possibly freak someone out.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Excellent idea!

If you want to lose all the blessings that come from the temple.

[Monster]

I doubt there will be temples as we know them 50 years