Discussing temple stuff online

[bluebell]

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

[Storm Rider]

First, I don't talk about the temple too much in a public milieu - as hard as it is to understand where others are coming from it is just as difficult to express oneself and be understood. However, in private conversation I am more willing to talk about the temple.

Too many LDS feel that nothing can be said when in actuality far more can be said than most realize.  If you find it in scripture it is obvious that it can be discussed and much of the Endowment is based on scripture.  

I served in the Seattle temple for over eight years.  It is a consistent pattern between Temple Presidents to not answer direct questions about specific things within the temple ordinances.  They were clear that their responses was to assist each member find their own inspiration in the temple rather than have it stated by another person.  I found that frustrating while assisting stakes that came to the temple for special temple days. There were special evenings for question and answers with a member of the temple presidencies.  Members would ask a question and get a non-answer in return.  Yet, as time passed I felt there was much wisdom in not assuming that each temple presidency had all the answers about the temple - they don't.  

The temple ordinances demand in-depth study and prayerful searching by each individual member.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

From a General Conference address by President Hinckley:

Quote

May I speak also of a matter pertinent to temples? I remind you of the absolute obligation to not discuss outside the temple that which occurs within the temple. Sacred matters deserve sacred consideration. We are under obligation, binding and serious, to not use temple language or speak of temple matters outside ...

Please, brethren, do not discuss outside of the temple that which occurs in the temple. While there, you are at liberty to do so.

I would personally not be comfortable engaging in such a discussion in a public forum.

[rongo]

There is a lack of clear direction on this. In talking about this with my stake president, he asked me to ask our temple president for clarification. Of course, this would be subject to "leader roulette," and his views would differ from other temple presidents. This came up when we were discussing recent people I had prepared for the temple. I tell people lots of things that we don't covenant not to discuss outside the temple or discuss at all. I think a lot of our restrictions are arbitrarily self-imposed, and we create a climate of "secrecy" that doesn't need to be there. 

I changed on this in another ward when a convert had a terrible experience when she received her endowment (it weirded her out). Our families are very close friends, and she got over it and eventually was one of my RS presidents. But, in complaining about the complete uselessness and inadequacy of the temple preparation class/manual, a stake presidency member told me that I was the gatekeeper of the temple, and it was my job to see that they were fully prepared and inoculated. I thought, "He's right!" and from then on, I have seen to it that my people are ready, and I try to anticipate and "head off" concerns. We discuss clothing (not in detail, and not the symbols, but I show the Harry Anderson picture of Moses ordaining Aaron with the priests around them to show the type of clothing we wear), and I prepare them for the experience of the endowment film, making covenants while participating in the drama and identifying ourselves as Adam and Eve, etc. I do prepare them somewhat for the new name, although I am not entirely comfortable with this. Maybe it's cultural? One elderly man was going to have a very difficult time remembering his, so he needed more of a prepping for this than most others. How to properly do that is delicate . . . 

The question I am supposed to ask the temple president is: may we mention the specific covenants we make in the endowment in preparing people or teaching in Church? They are in the scriptures, and are not earth-shattering. I see no problem at all teaching people what covenants they are going to make (the ones we make during the endowment), and I think many people will appreciate knowing that they will formally make *these* covenants from the scriptures (all well-known) in the endowment. But, I would appreciate authoritative guidance on this.

I would say it would be appropriate to point out that many people in the scriptures are given new names when they make covenants or enter "a new level" with God (Abram, Sariah, Jacob, Saul, etc.). 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From a General Conference address by President Hinckley:

I would personally not be comfortable engaging in such a discussion in a public forum.

This is a very important contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately, adhering strictly to this does not prepare most people well for the temple, and it does not help in preventing potential bad experiences with the temple (which is a very real thing for some people). 

It's a tough issue. 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

There's a book by Elder Packer,"The Holy Temple," that I think serves as a good guide for what can be considered appropriate to discuss outside of the temple. And of course any of our temple preparation materials. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36854_eng.pdf?lang=eng

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

This is a very important contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately, adhering strictly to this does not prepare most people well for the temple, and it does not help in preventing potential bad experiences with the temple (which is a very real thing for some people). 

It's a tough issue. 

I actually agree with you. Which is specifically why I wrote, 'in a public forum'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

The question I am supposed to ask the temple president is: may we mention the specific covenants we make in the endowment in preparing people or teaching in Church? They are in the scriptures, and are not earth-shattering. I see no problem at all teaching people what covenants they are going to make (the ones we make during the endowment), and I think many people will appreciate knowing that they will formally make *these* covenants from the scriptures (all well-known) in the endowment. But, I would appreciate authoritative guidance on this.

They are actually in the little booklet by Pres Packer that accompanies the temple prep manual. I absolutely point these out when I teach temple prep.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There's a book by Elder Packer,"The Holy Temple," that I think serves as a good guide for what can be considered appropriate to discuss outside of the temple. And of course any of our temple preparation materials. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/36854_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Yes, it has been my experience that our materials are adequate; the teaching of them, not always.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Duncan]

I only use what the scriptures say and what the Leaders have written. You'd be amazed at what people have said! In saying that though this is relevant

"To begin with, Elder Maxwell reminds us that the Apostle Paul spoke of the early leaders of Christ’s Church as “stewards of the mysteries of God.”(5) That became very evident to me when I served as a counselor in the Logan Temple presidency. We held a training meeting each day for every shift of workers, which means three times a day. We used two Temple related handbooks, the General Handbooks of Instruction, and official policies for temple operation sent to us by the Temple Department as our training materials. I am a witness that the brethren are stewards over the Temple and they require Temple presidencies to be their representatives in each Temple in the Church, to see that workers are properly trained so the ordinances are administered properly and exactly. There is great concern to avoid what was euphemistically termed “temple drift.” This is a phenomenon where unauthorized practices and procedures may be introduced, or where other approved practices may not be properly followed. When you think about it, it is a huge undertaking to assure that the Saints have the same experience in all 147 temples throughout the Church. I learned the brethren are the “stewards of the mysteries of God” and they take that responsibility very seriously and they expected Temple presidencies to do so as well.

 

One of the points we consistently made in those training sessions, from the appropriate handbooks, was that workers were not to answer patron’s questions. They were not authorized to give private interpretations of the Endowment, the ordinances, the symbolism, or the doctrine. They were to send patrons with questions to the Temple Presidency. Guess what? We were cautioned and taught that we should teach people to seek answers to questions for themselves by study, prayer, fasting, and frequent temple attendance. We were not authorized to give private interpretations of the meaning of the Endowment. As a new sealer I learned this lesson the hard way. My trainer explained that in proxy sealing sessions it was okay to share some insights and stories as we did the work. One evening the Temple President sat in on my session and heard me say something. After the session and the patrons left he asked me where I learned to do that.  I told him, “President, I am a teacher, and it comes naturally to me.”  He brought me up short with a rather direct remark. “Brother Bachman, you are not a teacher in the temple.  You were called to be a sealer, not a teacher!” He went on to explain that we were not authorized to teach about the meaning of the temple ordinances.(6)  In other words, I was ill-informed myself about who is authorized to teach about the temple. I came to a better understanding while serving in the Temple. So, the issue here is a common one. President Harold B. Lee  recalled, “One sister went about giving lectures on the temple. Why? She said that this was her calling but it wasn't.”

http://livingphilosophies.blogspot.ca/2015/07/self-appointed-expounders-of-lds-temple.html

[RevTestament]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

I have told several non-members that the things of the temple are virtually all Bible based. I tell them, however, that I have promised not to disclose the specific things I have covenanted. To help assure them that the things of the temple are not freaky or way out there, I tell them they will be able to find most of the language in their Bible. So for instance regarding this specific thing, I would refer them to Rev 2-4, and would tell them the things of the temple are symbolic, but I would probably stop there.

[JLHPROF]

My mind is always torn.
On one hand I feel many members and the Church in general are too strict and it hinders learning.
But on the other hand I feel the line between acceptable to discuss publicly and too sacred to discuss publicly has not been well defined, so better to err on the side of caution.

I really don't know where I draw the line.  Obviously if we promise those things don't get spoken of.
This is a tricky subject.  I know people I am positive go too far, and I know people who refuse to even broach anything temple related beyond what the manuals would say.

As a general rule if it was said publicly by a prophet of the Church I am comfortable addressing their public statements on the subject.
And given what Brigham said about the signs, tokens, names etc I think that we can discuss them up to a point.

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook (I joined because my friend was a member and she wanted me to read someone's post once, I'm not very active and have never posted anything myself).  Today one of the members asked a question about the significance of the new name in the temple.  She was very respectful and just wanted more information about what it was about, the idea behind it, etc.

Most of the women were supportive but there were a few who were adamant that it was sinful to talk about that all on Facebook.  I didn't see the problem but it made me wonder, how many other people felt that way?  

So what do you think, what can we talk about and what (besides the specific things we have specifically covenanted not to talk about) can't we?  

There are two dynamics going on I believe.  One is the cultural tradition of not talking about anything temple related outside of the temple.  This tradition is all around whenever people bring up anything temple related at church or in the culture and are hesitant to share anything, there is this idea that people don't know specifically what is fair ground to discuss outside of the temple, so they would rather err on the side of caution and not discuss anything at all.  

Secondly, there is a lack of clarity by church leaders and a lack of leadership when it comes to what is acceptable to discuss.  Aside from an occasional obscure book on the subject, we don't have any examples to point to where leaders are actually discussing specifics about the temple in a candid and respectful tone that individual members could model after.  So the confusion continues to perpetuate.  Honestly I'm not sure the leaders even think about what is kosher to discuss and what isn't, I think they also default to the err on the side of caution idea.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm a part of a "mommy group" on Facebook  

Well, that was your first mistake...

No, seriously, we have covenanted not to reveal our new names, but we have not covenanted to avoid discussing the significance of the practice.  We are free to discuss the significance of the endowment and sealings, etc. with others, so why not the significance of the new name?

[Gray]

The endowment ceremony itself says to not reveal a very few bits of information. Presumably hesitance to talk about other parts of the ceremony is a cultural thing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Aside from an occasional obscure book on the subject, we don't have any examples to point to where leaders are actually discussing specifics about the temple in a candid and respectful tone that individual members could model after.

According to the temple prep manual, each person preparing for the endowment is to be given a copy of Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple. It is therefore not obscure, and it is, in my opinion, specific, candid and respectful.

For example, it includes the following passages:

Quote

There are two published definitions or descriptions of the endowment, the first by President Brigham Young:

'Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being able to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell'. (Discourses of Brigham Young, comp. John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971], page 416.)

Elder James E. Talmage described the endowment thus:

'The Temple Endowment, as administered in modern temples, comprises instruction relating to the significance and sequence of past dispensations, and the importance of the present as the greatest and grandest era in human history. This course of instruction includes a recital of the most prominent events of the creative period, the condition of our first parents in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience and consequent expulsion from that blissful abode, their condition in the lone and dreary world when doomed to live by labor and sweat, the plan of redemption by which the great transgression may be atoned, the period of the great apostasy, the restoration of the Gospel with all its ancient powers and privileges, the absolute and indispensable condition of personal purity and devotion to the right in present life, and a strict compliance with Gospel requirements'. (James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1962], pages 99–100; hereafter cited as The House of the Lord.)

 

Quote

'The endowment and the temple work as revealed by the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith … fall clearly into four distinct parts: The preparatory ordinances; the giving of instruction by lectures and representations; covenants; and, finally, tests of knowledge ... (John A. Widtsoe, “Temple Worship,” The Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine 12 [April 1921]: 58.)

 

Quote

Associated with the endowment are washings and anointings—mostly symbolic in nature, but promising definite, immediate blessings as well as future blessings.

In connection with these ordinances, in the temple you will be officially clothed in the garment and promised marvelous blessings in connection with it.

 

Quote

Those who go to the temple have the privilege of taking upon themselves specific covenants and obligations relative to their exaltation and that of others. Elder James E. Talmage wrote:

'The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions'. (The House of the Lord, page 100.)

We covenant with the Lord to devote our time, talents, and means to His kingdom.

We are a covenant people. We covenant to give of our resources in time and money and talent—all we are and all we possess—to the interest of the kingdom of God upon the earth. In simple terms, we covenant to do good. We are a covenant people, and the temple is the center of our covenants. It is the source of the covenant.

 

[Jane_Doe]

My thoughts (after years of thinking on this):

There's the specific "do not discuss" list mentioned in the temple itself.  Obviously not a no-go.  Rest of this post is talking about things besides that specific list.

Speaking in general about things, like providing links listed on LDS.org, I'm totally good for.  They're on LDS.org for a reason.

Beyond that, the temple is a pearl (obviously some parts extra pearly).  So it's a judgement call, based on the question, asker, and environment (don't want to throw pearls to swine, but honest seekers yes).   If somebody is an anti-Mormon troll, I'm just not going to make sport for them.  If it's an honest question about something super basic/logistic, I'm willing to talk with anyone who honest (like mentioning there's laundry facilities).  

If it's something more pearly, like asking about new names... I'm a believer in sacred things in sacred places.  And yes, there are sacred places besides the temple (like the home).  If it's an honest question in a sacred place, I'm game.  Now online... frankly general FaceBook isn't frequently a sacred place.  However, a PM conversation can be somewhat sacred.  Obviously, I do my best to refer to in person if things get more sacred.  We are here on Earth to learn, and I feel uber-taboo-silence can hinder that.  So, sacred things in sacred places.  

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Aside from an occasional obscure book on the subject, we don't have any examples to point to where leaders are actually discussing specifics about the temple in a candid and respectful tone that individual members could model after.  So the confusion continues to perpetuate.  Honestly I'm not sure the leaders even think about what is kosher to discuss and what isn't, I think they also default to the err on the side of caution idea.  

I kind of agree.  Except there are some examples where leaders have discussed specifics about the temple.  They just aren't very recent.
There are public teachings from Presidents Young, Taylor, McKay, and others that would probably shock some of today's members.

Although some of these teachings aren't truly "public" either.  They were teachings given privately to select groups that were recorded and then published publicly.
So they are public information now, whether they were ever meant to be or not.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I kind of agree.  Except there are some examples where leaders have discussed specifics about the temple.  They just aren't very recent.
There are public teachings from Presidents Young, Taylor, McKay, and others that would probably shock some of today's members.

Although some of these teachings aren't truly "public" either.  They were teachings given privately to select groups that were recorded and then published publicly.
So they are public information now, whether they were ever meant to be or not.

There was a BYU talk in 1983 from a General Authority that mentioned that something has no symbolic value at all but it's just there for support. So, I take that to mean that not everything is symbolic. Plus there is this

https://www.templestudies.org/review-of-gaskill-alonzo-l-and-seth-g-soha-the-woman-at-the-veil/

Edited January 9, 2018 by Duncan

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

My thoughts (after years of thinking on this)...

Your thoughts almost perfectly mirror my thoughts, Jane.

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

According to the temple prep manual, each person preparing for the endowment is to be given a copy of Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple. It is therefore not obscure, and it is, in my opinion, specific, candid and respectful.

For example, it includes the following passages:

 

 

 

 

Those are good quotes and I’m glad they exist, yet somehow this thinking has not permeated into the average Orthodox Mormon’s cultural mindset.  This is part of why i believe in order to change the culture we need leaders modeling how to discuss the temple in candid everyday respectful ways.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Well, that was your first mistake...

 

I admit, it's pretty entertaining!

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Those are good quotes and I’m glad they exist, yet somehow this thinking has not permeated into the average Orthodox Mormon’s cultural mindset.

I think I'm about as 'orthodox' as a 'Mormon' gets!  But I agree that we don't always get this right for some reason. My temple prep experience was worthless. That's one of the reasons I'm careful to teach what's actually available in the curriculum. It's all there. My success rate so far at having people tell me that my lessons were exactly what they needed is 100%, so I think I'm doing OK...

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, it has been my experience that our materials are adequate; the teaching of them, not always.

I gave this some more thought, and in some intimate settings between the initiated, I feel we can circumspectly and discreetly go into some specificity as prompted by the Spirit (at least I hope so, as I've done it!). But I don't see this as part of a group discussion, online or in person, or appropriate for someone who hasn't been to the temple.

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I gave this some more thought, and in some intimate settings between the initiated, I feel we can circumspectly and discreetly go into some specificity as prompted by the Spirit (at least I hope so, as I've done it!). But I don't see this as part of a group discussion, online or in person, or appropriate for someone who hasn't been to the temple.

I think that is roughly what Jane_Doe expressed above. And I agree.