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

[probablyHagoth7]

20 hours 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?... 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.

Agreed.

For decades, I've believed that even though temple instruction is sacred, there are really only a handful of things that we should *not* discuss/disclose. And the rest is fair game.

Faith comes by hearing. And if we don't discuss *some* of the important instruction in the temple, it remains more difficult to expand/exercise faith in core things they were intended to be endowed with and live by.

The scriptures are sacred, yet we hand copies to friends and discuss them at length. Why then not discuss temple instruction that do not fall under the umbrella of the few things not to be disclosed? The pattern of revelation is to first think things out in our minds...and for many of us, that involves some use of others as an initial sounding board. Why then not apply that same pattern to most temple instruction/revelation - to grease the skids a wee bit? As iron sharpens iron.

I know that my/your preference for discussion runs counter to common interpretation/tradition about the temple. (And runs counter to discussion board rules.) But outside the confines of this forum, I'm not one for upholding tradition just for the sake of tradition (like subsequent generations cutting off the ends of the roast before cooking...never bothering to ask Grandma why.)  

For others out there, are there good reasons that my general attitude about temple content/discussion should change?

Edited April 15, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[thesometimesaint]

While there are few things we definitely aren't supposed to talk about. Most everything else is considered sacred enough to discuss only in the Temple.

[hope_for_things]

On 4/14/2017 at 5:12 PM, 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. 

Ward buildings don't have the space or configurations for the ordinances.  But it seems you're unfamiliar with temple history in the early church and who could use the temples.  Non-members went inside and the temples were originally designed as schools and office buildings in addition to the ritual work performed.  Its only in the Utah time period when temples became the exclusive and closed buildings that they are today.  

Now, I'm not saying the original way was perfect, certainly there is opportunity for improvement in a church that believes in continuing revelation.  

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:59 AM, thesometimesaint said:

While there are few things we definitely aren't supposed to talk about. Most everything else is considered sacred enough to discuss only in the Temple.

I wonder why we are able to talk about other sacred things outside of the temple. What is more sacred that Jesus- his birth, ministry, death & resurrection?  We can talk about that outside of the temple. Is the temple more special? I don't think so

 

[HappyJackWagon]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ward buildings don't have the space or configurations for the ordinances.  But it seems you're unfamiliar with temple history in the early church and who could use the temples.  Non-members went inside and the temples were originally designed as schools and office buildings in addition to the ritual work performed.  Its only in the Utah time period when temples became the exclusive and closed buildings that they are today.  

Now, I'm not saying the original way was perfect, certainly there is opportunity for improvement in a church that believes in continuing revelation.  

It seems for some people the specialness of the temple is realized through the exclusion of others. The endowment was originally given to people in an upstairs room of Joseph's Red Brick Stores where they also held masonic meetings. It was a store and hardly a special place the way we would normally think of one. Temple ordinances have also been performed on top of mountains and in other non-temple edifices. Even church buildings are sometimes dedicated like a temple for the purpose of transmitting temple dedication services for view of a larger audience. Still, in todays world it is all based around specialness which is defined as worthiness. But it hasn't always been that way which tells me it doesn't need to always be that way.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ward buildings don't have the space or configurations for the ordinances.  But it seems you're unfamiliar with temple history in the early church and who could use the temples.  Non-members went inside and the temples were originally designed as schools and office buildings in addition to the ritual work performed.  Its only in the Utah time period when temples became the exclusive and closed buildings that they are today. 

Exaggerating a bit I think.  Pre-Utah that only leaves Nauvoo and Kirtland.
And the Kirtland Temple didn't include the full ordinances or the full priesthood and was used as a school, office, etc.  In order to return to that kind of temple we would have to reject the restored doctrines of the temple.  That is a path many seem to have advocated.

In the past several years I have noticed an ongoing trend among the critics and doubters.  If you were to plot the restoration of the gospel on a timeline, from the foundation of the Church in 1830 to the culmination with the restoration of the exalting ordinance in September of 1843 you can see that people have their stopping points in what they will accept.

There are many members who would have liked to see the Church stop with the Kirtland doctrines and ordinances and reject the Nauvoo doctrines and ordinances.  There are those who can take a little Nauvoo (the endowment) but reject all other principles restored at that time.
And just like members, each breakaway sect you look at during Joseph's lifetime said 'this far, no further'.  CoC accepted the restoration up to the Kirtland era and stopped.  William Law's Church went all the way up to Plural Marriage and stopped.  The Hedrickites despite formation after Joseph's death only accept the earliest of his works (BoM, priesthood restoration, commandment to establish Zion in Missouri).

It's the same mentality that questions the eternal existence of Christ as God.  That cannot accept polygamy.  That rejects the KFD.  That takes offense at the Council of Fifty and its political mission.
People will accept up to a point.  Until something comes along the flies in the face of their traditions, then they walk away.
The gospel is not a buffet.
Whenever I hear someone advocating a path backwards to the doctrines of the earliest years of the restoration it becomes clear that there is a lack of understanding.

[Maestrophil]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems for some people the specialness of the temple is realized through the exclusion of others. The endowment was originally given to people in an upstairs room of Joseph's Red Brick Stores where they also held masonic meetings. It was a store and hardly a special place the way we would normally think of one. Temple ordinances have also been performed on top of mountains and in other non-temple edifices. Even church buildings are sometimes dedicated like a temple for the purpose of transmitting temple dedication services for view of a larger audience. Still, in todays world it is all based around specialness which is defined as worthiness. But it hasn't always been that way which tells me it doesn't need to always be that way.

I can understand what you mean by this - and in a way, I agree.  Hope_for _Things also asked why having all family members at a sealing could make it less special when to him, it would make it more special...

In my opinion, a large part of the magic and spirit I feel in the temple is the state of unity and oneness of mind that we all share.  I always look around in the temple and think, "all these people here would have my back on principle alone, we are all more family than much of my blood family, and I don't even have to know them."  Just knowing they  believe in the literal brotherhood of the saints (though I know some in there might be phoning it in or lying to get there) and the plan of salvation through Christ, strengthens me and introduces a spirit I feel nowhere else.  If I thought people attending my sealing would in any way be thinking poorly of it or sitting in judgement of it as silly, sacrilegious, superstitious, etc, that would definitely take away form the spirit I felt when I was sealed to my spouse.  

 

MP

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems for some people the specialness of the temple is realized through the exclusion of others. The endowment was originally given to people in an upstairs room of Joseph's Red Brick Stores where they also held masonic meetings. It was a store and hardly a special place the way we would normally think of one. Temple ordinances have also been performed on top of mountains and in other non-temple edifices. Even church buildings are sometimes dedicated like a temple for the purpose of transmitting temple dedication services for view of a larger audience. Still, in todays world it is all based around specialness which is defined as worthiness. But it hasn't always been that way which tells me it doesn't need to always be that way.

You make some good points, I think Joseph certainly was emphasizing the special nature of these rituals.  Also the secret nature of polygamy and masonry were influential factors during this time period.  I think that those are elements that we should re-evaluate, whether they are even necessary at all, as well as ask the question about what some of the negative consequences that come from emphasizing elements of specialness and secrecy that might not work well in our current society.   These elements perhaps didn't even work well during Joseph's day as you could argue that they contributed to his premature death and the exile of Mormons from Nauvoo.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Exaggerating a bit I think.  Pre-Utah that only leaves Nauvoo and Kirtland.
And the Kirtland Temple didn't include the full ordinances or the full priesthood and was used as a school, office, etc.  In order to return to that kind of temple we would have to reject the restored doctrines of the temple.  That is a path many seem to have advocated.

Why would it require a rejection of doctrines, I don't understand.  Also, wasn't the Nauvoo temple built in the same structure as Kirtland?  

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's the same mentality that questions the eternal existence of Christ as God.  That cannot accept polygamy.  That rejects the KFD.  That takes offense at the Council of Fifty and its political mission.
People will accept up to a point.  Until something comes along the flies in the face of their traditions, then they walk away.
The gospel is not a buffet.
Whenever I hear someone advocating a path backwards to the doctrines of the earliest years of the restoration it becomes clear that there is a lack of understanding.

I appreciate your perspective, I just don't interpret the history that way.  From my study of the history, each branch of Mormonism has chosen which components they wish to emphasize.  Individual members also choose which elements work well for them.  It is all a buffet and I don't see any evidence to suggest that any one group or one person embraces everything. 

From my perspective it would be impossible to align with all the teachings because many of the teachings are fundamentally contradictory, so it forces you to pick and chose.  This is true not only in Mormonism, but with respect to the Bible and Christianity as a whole.  There is no universal Christian message that is in harmony with everything, the idea of universal harmony is an illusion.  

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

And the Kirtland Temple didn't include the full ordinances or the full priesthood and was used as a school, office, etc.  In order to return to that kind of temple we would have to reject the restored doctrines of the temple.  That is a path many seem to have advocated.

Why would it require a rejection of doctrines, I don't understand.  Also, wasn't the Nauvoo temple built in the same structure as Kirtland? 

Nauvoo and Kirtland may have been similar but the interior was designed for different purposes based on the ordinances revealed up to that time.
A Kirtland Temple would have to be completely retrofitted to perform ordinances.  Not even a font for proxy baptisms.
If we were to return to Kirtland era teachings much doctrine would be lost.

The Kirtland temple was simply not designed to administer the endowment.  It was closer in design to the Tabernacle of Moses.

Whereas the Nauvoo Temple was designed much as later Temples.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

I can understand what you mean by this - and in a way, I agree.  Hope_for _Things also asked why having all family members at a sealing could make it less special when to him, it would make it more special...

In my opinion, a large part of the magic and spirit I feel in the temple is the state of unity and oneness of mind that we all share.  I always look around in the temple and think, "all these people here would have my back on principle alone, we are all more family than much of my blood family, and I don't even have to know them."  Just knowing they  believe in the literal brotherhood of the saints (though I know some in there might be phoning it in or lying to get there) and the plan of salvation through Christ, strengthens me and introduces a spirit I feel nowhere else.  If I thought people attending my sealing would in any way be thinking poorly of it or sitting in judgement of it as silly, sacrilegious, superstitious, etc, that would definitely take away form the spirit I felt when I was sealed to my spouse.  

 

MP

I can appreciate this yet I also think it may be part of the problem in that it creates or at least reinforces an Us versus Them mindset.

Choosing brotherhood of those I agree with over my literal family feels like a rejection of family in favor of an echo chamber in which I'm not challenged or even required to consider alternative views or relationships. I think that is counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Whereas the Nauvoo Temple was designed much as later Temples.

Pretty sure this isn't the original design for the temple.  This may have been how it was later modified by BY, but they started construction on it way before the development of the Endowment, so they wouldn't have had creation rooms and celestial rooms, this has to be anachronistic. Unless they changed the designs mid construction to accommodate the new practices?  

I think the pictures in this post represent the more historically original design.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauvoo_Temple

 

[CV75]

Do you carry the white stone given to you night and all day as instructed?

Edited April 18, 2017 by CV75

[Maestrophil]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can appreciate this yet I also think it may be part of the problem in that it creates or at least reinforces an Us versus Them mindset.

Choosing brotherhood of those I agree with over my literal family feels like a rejection of family in favor of an echo chamber in which I'm not challenged or even required to consider alternative views or relationships. I think that is counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And I can understand that view completely.  I suppose it all depends on how strongly one believes in the LDS teaching of God and his purposes.  In a very real and literal way, I believe, and feel like being with other members in the temple is a "family reunion" every time with my eternal heavenly family.  

That in no way reduces my love for my earthy family regardless of belief, and it does not keep me from being challenged or considering alternate views.  Respecting other views and loving people regardless of belief, or lack of, does not keep one from being able to enjoy the solace and peace of a consecrated space.  

After my sealing, we went to great effort and expense to hold a separate ceremony for all of our friends and family to attend regardless of religious belief. It was a lovely experience.  I would have felt uncomfortable with some of those family members being in the sealing ceremony because I know how poorly they think of the church and the temple