Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's what I'm saying about the context informing the meaning of words. 

When I say that my daughter is practicing her violin and you say your doctor is practicing medicine, the context of the two statements defines what we understand the meaning of the word practice to be.  

Religion also uses words that are used in other walks of life, but within the context of that religion. 

No, I don't know that God exists in the same way that I know that I have a leg.  One I can see while the other I have to gather knowledge of through my spiritual experiences and the experiences of others. 

I both cases I feel honest in using the word know and I expect that others would understand the context of each statement just as you and I understand that practicing the violin and practicing medicine have different contextual meanings.

Your point using the word “practice” is apt.

If there is a more accurate word (like believe, in this case), why not use it to be more clear?

But, my experience has shown me that Mormons are the only faith that uses the word “know” to mean “believe.”  There May be other cultures/groups/individuals that do, but my observations are as such.

Edited January 3, 2019 by SouthernMo

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

And yet none of those ten are synonymous with “faith” or “believe.”  It’s a linguistic discussion, but clearly the Mormon culture has its own unique definition of “know” that I personally do not find useful.

I would argue the very first one is synonymous with "faith" or "believe" in the context of how Latter-day Saints use it.  The first one is "Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information" and when Latter-day Saints say "I know that the church is true", that could also be reworded as "I have become aware through my own personal observation and/or inquiry that the church is true".

[JAHS]

57 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I gotta say this is why Pres. Nelson says to take your vitamins, because some of this is giving me a headache🤕

Or a heart attack.

 

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if you personally don't find it useful, makes sense not to use it.

But you shouldn't be judging most others who use it, imo, unless they have explained to you how they understand "know" and it is not consistent with their usage.

Communities develop their own jargon and languages changes over time.  Would you have argued against using "gay" as a term for homosexual among the gay community back in the day it wasn't in common usage as inconsistent or just seen it as them adapting the greater language for their community needs?

You’re dead on. I realize that I am in the minority in my usage of the word. Our Mormon tribe can start to use any word to mean whatever it wants; it’s the nature of language.

But, doesn’t broadening the definition of a word dilute its meaning?  I think we should be as accurate as possible when we testify.  Today, I have no idea whether someone “knows” or “believes” something in our church when they say “I know.”

[Calm]

I personally prefer that people not just say "I know", but include the why's and how's so that would give the context and help with understanding that you seem to desire.

OTOH, I know of many members who know God loves them in the same way they know their spouse loves them, by observing behaviours they have identified as loving acts.

[Hamba Tuhan]

32 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You seem to know that god exists just as much as you know you have blood inside you.

That's a perfectly apt description. Well done!

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re dead on. I realize that I am in the minority in my usage of the word. Our Mormon tribe can start to use any word to mean whatever it wants; it’s the nature of language.

But, doesn’t broadening the definition of a word dilute its meaning?  I think we should be as accurate as possible when we testify.  Today, I have no idea whether someone “knows” or “believes” something in our church when they say “I know.”

Broadening can add layers of nuances lacking in a more precise usage.  Think poetry and how much meaning can be within simple phrases.  Got to go, family stuff.

Picture is worth a thousand words (not all pictures though)...think of it as only being allowed to use primary red, primary blue, primary orange, or green versus amber, crimson, lapis, etc.   some words can provide such depth because of the experience brought to them.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

But, my experience has shown me that Mormons are the only faith that uses the word “know” to mean “believe.” 

That could be a cultural expression, as you've suggested, and I suspect in quite a few cases it is. At the same time, I strongly suspect it's also because there is something unique to the Restoration that generates genuine knowledge. That has certainly been my experience.

I have a faithful and funny Catholic mate that I like to hang out with as often as possible (which, sadly, is once or twice a year). Last year we went to the cinema together to watch Martin Scorsese's Silence. As we were walking out afterwards, he said to me, 'Isn't that exactly how it is? We have to figure out how to maintain faith in light of God's complete silence'. I didn't know what exactly to say precisely because I didn't want to offend, so I replied, meekly, 'Mate, I haven't found God to be silent. At all'. That was the end of that conversation.

On a previous occasion, when he'd come around for dinner and a message from the missionaries, he said to me (after the Elders had left) that we are the most 'spiritually alive' people he knows. He then said, jokingly, that the Elders and I should visit his parish and teach the 'old ladies' -- he claims that he's the only person who attends who's not one! -- how to be spiritually alive. I replied, in all sincerity, 'Mate, if we taught them how to be spiritually alive in the way we know how, they wouldn't be attending your parish anymore'. Again, end of conversation.

[esodije]

I did an endowment session today. I won’t mention any particulars, but the changes are definitely the biggest modification to the ceremony since 1990.  It seems the biggest drivers were, first, to put women more on par with men in terms of their standing before God, and, second, to shorten the ceremony somewhat. I feel confident that new videos will be made—it seems like a total regression to be watching a filmstrip.

Edited January 3, 2019 by esodije

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Last year we went to the cinema together to watch Martin Scorsese's Silence.

That is a fantastic movie. Such a great study of ethics and faith.

[blueglass]

13 minutes ago, esodije said:

I did an endowment session today. I won’t mention any particulars, but the changes are definitely the biggest modification to the ceremony since 1990.  It seems the biggest drivers were, first, to put women more on par with men in terms of their standing before God, and, second, to shorten the ceremony somewhat. I feel confident that new videos will be made—it seems like a total regression to be watching a filmstrip.

Who is writing the screenplay?  Can we submit one for consideration?  

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, esodije said:

I did an endowment session today. I won’t mention any particulars, but the changes are definitely the biggest modification to the ceremony since 1990.  It seems the biggest drivers were, first, to put women more on par with men in terms of their standing before God, and, second, to shorten the ceremony somewhat. I feel confident that new videos will be made—it seems like a total regression to be watching a filmstrip.

Then again, we are not there to be entertained we are there to learn and make covenants. ........... But the videos do add something to it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That is a fantastic movie. Such a great study of ethics and faith.

It was definitely a well made, thoughtful, enjoyable piece of cinema. I found it interesting that one of the minor characters in the beginning was a figure I knew because I had translated and used his writings in my PhD research.

At the same time, I found it thoroughly depressing. I kept wanting to shout advice to the characters, reminding them that life doesn't need to be that way. I get the strong impression that a number of Christians (including Saints) somehow feel there's something more authentic about a tortured faith journey that almost requires God to be silent, distant and ineffable. I much prefer the imminent, involved God that the Latter-day prophets and the Restoration have made available to us.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's a bit more complex. The biggest issue in our apostasy narrative is, after all, loss of key "mysteries" (in the 1st century sense). i.e. the endowment & preparatory ordinances. But I think changing the ordinances also is a big deal. If you read the Didiche it makes sense how sprinkling became normative. There you're supposed to baptize by immersion in fresh running water. But if fresh water isn't available you can use more dank pools. But if that's not available (not uncommon in a desert environment) you can sprinkle what water you have. That became transformed from what to do in a limited case to the main case. It's a case of things getting out of hand. By way of analogy we can imagine the example of soldiers using potatoes for the sacrament when bread wasn't available but then making potatoes the normative case and building up an imaginary theology about it. You see the same thing the past 40 years with white shirts or holding ones hand behind ones back while passing. It's easy for such things to transform an ordinance illegitimately. After all with sprinkling, while perhaps in the big picture not a huge deal, the symbolism of death and resurrection is lost and only the washing is left -- and that not totally left.

But of course our ordinances have also changed. The most obvious being using water in the sacrament instead of wine.

With regards to the endowment, there have obviously been a lot of changes. Largely because culturally elements were being misinterpreted. There's not a good way given the sacredness of the rite, to explain things better. (Although part of me wishes videos explaining a lot of the symbolism were available - I think our modern culture is so disassociated from the ancient world that a lot is still misinterpreted) A big part of me wishes there was at least one session a week - perhaps in the SLC temple - that did the older rites with the curses and more masonic elements. Many of them did have deeply symbolic meanings that entered into masonry from the ancient world. I think if only as a kind of educational value that'd be very useful since again such things can't really be talked about.

Thank you. Very thought provoking.

Regarding the hand behind the back, we recently had a deacon who could not keep his left hand fingers away from his nose, so the hand behind the back would have been a good thing. Sometimes mundane things like that get involved in procedures.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

But, my experience has shown me that Mormons are the only faith that uses the word “know” to mean “believe.”  There May be other cultures/groups/individuals that do, but my observations are as such.

I view belief on a continuum.  On the one end of the spectrum are beliefs that have no justification (we call those plain ol' beliefs) and on the other end are justified beliefs (we call that "knowledge").  But in the end, everything falls on a continuum of belief, with some being more justified than others.  But unless you are an infallibilitist, there is uncertainty on either extreme.  So where on the continuum can you definitively draw the line between "belief" and "knowledge"?  And what really counts as justification?  It seems that even that is a matter of interpretation and perspective.  So in the end, how “belief” and “knowledge” is used is a matter of...belief. 

From a pragmatic perspective, an idea is true if it has practical efficiency.  In that sense, I can say that I know that God loves me in the same way that I know that my mother loves me.  These are both practically efficient beliefs.   

Those more well versed in philosophy might pick apart my understanding of epistemology, and that will be based on their interpretation based on their perspective...

Edited January 4, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, esodije said:

I feel confident that new videos will be made ...

As I speculated above, this may actually be the fix that prevents all non-English-speaking Saints from experiencing the presentation of the endowment as something dubbed over.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This may be true, but generations of Masons will be able to give (at least) some of the same components.

I reckon the angels and sentinels will be up to the task.

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I reckon the angels and sentinels will be up to the task.

I would like to hope so 😇

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

But even the understanding of "keys" has changed. The contemporary view of keys as some sort of metaphysical and transferable token of authority did not originate with Joseph Smith. For Joseph, "keys" referred to knowledge. It wasn't until after the death of Joseph that we start to see keys as some sort of metaphysical thing.

Keys as knowledge was certainly a part of the conceptos keys, but only a part. There is much more involved. A review of all the references to keys starting in Section 7 in the D&C makes this quite clear.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

This is the position that is driving me out of Mormonism.  LDS believe that Christ saves us more than others because we have the authority?  Where in Christ's teachings does he tell us that conversion to him requires authority?

The atonement is His, and I believe he will save all who accept his atonement!  I am not arrogant enough to think that my membership makes me have a "whole conversion" while there are many, many better men than me out there who are not on the membership records of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who are way more converted to Christ than I am.

Apparently you do not accept the words of Christ in the Book of Mormon?

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently you do not accept the words of Christ in the Book of Mormon?

You’ll have to be more specific. 

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You’ll have to be more specific. 

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

[Bernard Gui]

Sister Gui and I just returned from the temple. Uplifting, comforting, inspiring, and a great blessing to attend today. Great time sharing our thoughts afterwards.

Honoring the First Presidency’s request and instructions,  respectfully asking that the specifics not be revealed.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

55 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It was definitely a well made, thoughtful, enjoyable piece of cinema. I found it interesting that one of the minor characters in the beginning was a figure I knew because I had translated and used his writings in my PhD research.

At the same time, I found it thoroughly depressing. I kept wanting to shout advice to the characters, reminding them that life doesn't need to be that way. I get the strong impression that a number of Christians (including Saints) somehow feel there's something more authentic about a tortured faith journey that almost requires God to be silent, distant and ineffable. I much prefer the imminent, involved God that the Latter-day prophets and the Restoration have made available to us.

I agree, but there are many examples of individuals who have struggled for long periods and were not relieved of their burdens; they bore their burdens through a tough slog and just kept going. I think of an example in Br. Robison's book, Believing Christ, where the woman prayed consistently, daily, hourly that she be healed and allowed to walk and was utterly denied for decades. Yet, for her, she remained faithful and was grateful to still have the sweet name of the Savior on her lips. A spiritual life is not always a life of constant communication with our Father. Sometimes, it is a not questioning his silence and remaining faithful in his existence seen or felt darkly. 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Book of Mormon clearly spells out in the words of the Father and the Son exactly what is required for salvation and that authority is needed to administer the parts that require ordinances. Do you not accept those parts?

I'm sorry to ask because it is a pain maybe, but more specific, scripture ref?