Disapointment in Temple, how to get over?

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would argue that the only problem I could possibly see with kneeling is the current/modern cultural acceptance of kneeling. There's nothing wrong in and of itself, but if one thinks it's inappropriate, it is more reflective of that person, and not the person actually kneeling in prayer. It's as if some are arguing that the perception of others of the kneeling prayer is more important than the person kneeling in prayer. And this is in the temple...a religious context, and kneeling in prayer is inappropriate? I find this pretty funny.

There are any number of things we do or refrain from doing in the temple that have to do with cultural acceptance. 

As has been brought up here, we don't use cell phones or even carry them with us. We dress pretty much in a uniform manner. We refrain from talking during the endowment sessions, and we speak (or should speak) in subdued tones in other areas of the temple. We don't cry out spontaneously, as might be a common form of worship in some other Christian faiths. 

Decorum is an element of reverence, and that includes refraining from behavior that calls attention to ourselves or might be a distraction to others, thereby inhibiting the worshipful feeling they are trying to experience.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are any number of things we do or refrain from doing in the temple that have to do with cultural acceptance. 

As has been brought up here, we don't use cell phones or even carry them with us. We dress pretty much in a uniform manner. We refrain from talking during the endowment sessions, and we speak (or should speak) in subdued tones in other areas of the temple. We don't cry out spontaneously, as might be a common form of worship in some other Christian faiths. 

Decorum is an element of reverence, and that includes refraining from behavior that calls attention to ourselves or might be a distraction to others, thereby inhibiting the worshipful feeling they are trying to experience.

Cell phones? Yeah, that's clearly disruptive. You're kinda setting up a straw man with that argument.

Sure, there are many things we don't do because of cultural norms but I would suggest that kneeling is a religious norm for many religions and it is striking that it would be considered inappropriate by so many here. Kneeling isn't merely a "common form of worship in some other Christian faiths", it's a part of LDS faith and tradition. Acting like kneeling in a religious place, (the holiest place on earth), constitutes a lack of decorum and is in fact irreverent is comical.

If someone is truly being disruptive in their kneeling prayer in the CR, then maybe that person should be referred back to speak with his/her Stake President. I mean, if someone is kneeling in the middle of the floor, arms raised, speaking out loud, then yeah, that would be disruptive and could be dealt with on an individual basis. But banning kneeling in the CR sure seems like an overreach. But if you're comfortable banning kneeling, that's cool.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Cell phones? Yeah, that's clearly disruptive. You're kinda setting up a straw man with that argument.

Sure, there are many things we don't do because of cultural norms but I would suggest that kneeling is a religious norm for many religions and it is striking that it would be considered inappropriate by so many here. Kneeling isn't merely a "common form of worship in some other Christian faiths", it's a part of LDS faith and tradition. Acting like kneeling in a religious place, (the holiest place on earth), constitutes a lack of decorum and is in fact irreverent is comical.

If someone is truly being disruptive in their kneeling prayer in the CR, then maybe that person should be referred back to speak with his/her Stake President. I mean, if someone is kneeling in the middle of the floor, arms raised, speaking out loud, then yeah, that would be disruptive and could be dealt with on an individual basis. But banning kneeling in the CR sure seems like an overreach. But if you're comfortable banning kneeling, that's cool.

 

Cell phones is not a straw man. It’s an example of a convention that’s acceptable elsewhere but not in the temple. It speaks to your point about “cultural acceptance.”

Kneeling is a norm for us, but not outside the home or other intimate settings or occasions. In fact, the only time I’ve seen it done at church is during meetings of the stake council I belonged to years ago, and even then I thought it rather odd. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that.

But it could also be said for any other "outward" show of piety. Any outward expression of an inner commitment could be deemed unnecessary. Bowing heads and closing eyes? Unnecessary because God knows your heart. Ordinances? Where does it end  

I think kneeling in public in a place and manner not required in formal ordinances is a reasonable boundary. I’m OK with it. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Bishops are often blessed with inspiration from God.  I'm sure they'll figure out what to do, eventually.  Another option would be that if they are going to park there they give their keys to somebody so that those cars can be moved when people in other cars are blocked from leaving because of those cars that are parked there.  Or maybe they could be among the first to get leave after the meetings so they'd be gone before the people in the other cars wanted to leave.  Or maybe as long as everyone knows who those cars belong to they can just ask those people to move their cars when the people in the other cars are ready to leave.  Lots and lots of possibilities without having to resort to taking people to their homes because their cars were blocked from leaving, and then having to take them back to the building to pick their cars up later long after the meetings have ended.  What that bishop's counselor had to go through isn't something I would want him to have to go through again.

Placement of the cones is the most workable of your ideas that I’ve seen. But the problem of inadequate parking for the ward remains. 
 

They could divide the ward, I suppose. But the problem as I see it is not that there are too many members but that they collectively drive too many vehicles for the facility to accommodate. Like most meetinghouses in the Church, this one was not designed for single-adult wards. And there are already meeting houses in the valley that have been totally given over to single-adult wards and stakes to meet the growing demand for meeting space. 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with that.

But it could also be said for any other "outward" show of piety. Any outward expression of an inner commitment could be deemed unnecessary. Bowing heads and closing eyes? Unnecessary because God knows your heart. Ordinances? Where does it end  

I have thoughts on this most weeks on Sunday before sacrament meeting. It's like a social hour in my chapel before the meeting starts. I have been really trying to follow council and sit quietly beforehand.

I would most weeks like to pray. So I wonder...if I bow my head am giving an outward sign of piety? Some don't even notice and talk to me anyway. To stop this should I fold my arms instead of placing my hands in my lap or is this too much of an outward sign? 

[The Nehor]

On 9/30/2019 at 8:36 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It strikes me as far more awkward to use plural pronouns to refer to a singe person or entity. It sounds especially silly when you get to using the reflexive pronoun (themselves). 
 

So I will resist your campaign, not specifically to annoy you but to keep the language free of faddish corruption. 

In my job I have to write a lot about individuals whose gender varies. I prefer succinct “they” or “their” to endless “he or she” and “his or her” statements. I would also be okay with adding a gender neutral pronoun to English.

All language is faddish corruption unless you speak Adamic or Enochian.

Edited October 2, 2019 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

On 9/30/2019 at 2:34 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

But I wondered why you used the singular <their> in “If it’s a matron that will be on their name badge.” Here is an instance where the person referenced is unequivocally and unambiguously female, so you could easily have said, “If it’s a matron, that will be on <her> name badge.” 

Because gender in the sentence was never the issue but any and all of the three would have their title on their name badges. 

Did I still get it wrong, Mr Grammar Expert? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Because gender in the sentence was never the issue but any and all of the three would have their title on their name badges. 

Did I still get it wrong, Mr Grammar Expert? 

 

Or to put it another way, each of the three would have her title on her name badge.(not "their" title on "their" name badge). Each is singular.

I don't like the singular they/their/them under any circumstance (pet peeve), but even if one does accept it, there's no arguable reason to use it here, because we know a temple matron will invariably be female.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In my job I have to write a lot about individuals whose gender varies. I prefer succinct “they” or “their” to endless “he or she” and “his or her” statements.

.

I wrote a lot in my job too, and I could generally find a way to avoid the awkward singular they/their/them/themselves.

Similarly, I never once in a career of over three decades used that abominable contrivance "spokesperson." If it was a woman, I called her a spokeswoman; if a man, I called him a spokesman. If I could not be sure of the gender, I used a word like representative.

Quote

I would also be okay with adding a gender neutral pronoun to English.

I'm not sure how well such a thing would catch on. But have you considered the use of "one" and "one's"? That's already a part of English.

Quote

All language is faddish corruption unless you speak Adamic or Enochian

That's a lame excuse. Changes to the language occur very slowly over time and are usually justifiable. And it's a good thing, too. It preserves the intelligibility of language.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or to put it another way, each of the three would have her title on her name badge.(not "their" title on "their" name badge). Each is singular.

I don't like the singular they/their/them under any circumstance (pet peeve), but even if one does accept it, there's no arguable reason to use it here, because we know a temple matron will invariably be female.

Agreed in this case.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wrote a lot in my job too, and I could generally find a way to avoid the awkward singular they/their/them/themselves.

Similarly, I never once in a career of over three decades used that abominable contrivance "spokesperson." If it was a woman, I called her a spokeswoman; if a man, I called him a spokesman. If I could not be sure of the gender, I used a word like representative.

I'm not sure how well such a thing would catch on. But have you considered the use of "one" and "one's"? That's already a part of English.

That's a lame excuse. Changes to the language occur very slowly over time and are usually justifiable. And it's a good thing, too. It preserves the intelligibility of language.

I have never had much problem with the spokesperson word. I suppose it is more common in journalism. My writing (both my day job and freelance work) tends to be instructional and I write a lot in the second person or third person and often tell someone how to do things with another person of indeterminate gender which makes it difficult. I either have to use a noun for the person (often “subject”) which can sound stilted and there is no singular pronoun I can use.

I have tried using “one” but it comes across as pretentious if used that way and is sometimes confusing to the reader unfamiliar with that use (my audience is not always well educated).

So I sometimes use the plural pronoun. I would prefer a singular gender neutral one though. In the current social environment with people inventing new genders and pronouns I would think a gender neutral pronoun would be easy to create.

I would argue intelligibility of language is tied to the current state of language. Most modern readers struggle with Shakespeare but his contemporaries had no problem with it. Go back further and it gets even harder. Shifts in language are slow but they do happen and it has rarely changed abruptly to such an extreme that intelligibility was lost.

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Or to put it another way, each of the three would have her title on her name badge.(not "their" title on "their" name badge). Each is singular.

I don't like the singular they/their/them under any circumstance (pet peeve), but even if one does accept it, there's no arguable reason to use it here, because we know a temple matron will invariably be female.

Ok thanks for the lesson. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Duncan, write this thread title, did Yoda?

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hey Duncan, write this thread title, did Yoda?

you mean "who wrote this thread title?" 😎 you can't put everything you want to say in the title! you have to be alluring but discreet

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hey Duncan, write this thread title, did Yoda?

Yoda is the master of anastrophe.

[Kenngo1969]

"Mind what you have learned!  Save you, it can!" 

[Matt Lohrke]

This should be expected as the LDS endowment has been repurposed from the Scottish Free Mason Rites of Initiation (called "Exaltation").    This really isn't even debatable.  I can show you a side-by-side comparison.

Christ told us to offer him a broken heart and a contrite spirit.   He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Matt Lohrke said:

This should be expected as the LDS endowment has been repurposed from the Scottish Free Mason Rites of Initiation (called "Exaltation").    This really isn't even debatable.  I can show you a side-by-side comparison.

Christ told us to offer him a broken heart and a contrite spirit.   He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

Hundreds of threads on here show and talk about this exact point, we all know the similarities..this has been well known since the very day Joseph Smith have the endowment out over 100 years ago. This isn’t new information or shocking to anyone here.

 Believe what you will, but this comment offers very little to this discussion. Especially since many hundreds also enjoy and find peace in the ceremony. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut, but I felt I had to say something.

[JLHPROF]

18 hours ago, Matt Lohrke said:

This should be expected as the LDS endowment has been repurposed from the Scottish Free Mason Rites of Initiation (called "Exaltation").    This really isn't even debatable.  I can show you a side-by-side comparison.

Yep.  Everyone here knows that.  We've moved on to questions like why are they similar, where did the rites originate, which elements predate masonry, which items are also scriptural, what elements may have eternal origins, and more.  The similarities are old news.

Quote

Christ told us to offer him a broken heart and a contrite spirit.   He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

Ah, yeah...about that...

Edited October 4, 2019 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

17 hours ago, Matt Lohrke said:

Christ told us to offer him a broken heart and a contrite spirit.   He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

Except for the tokens (whatever that means), we've got all of that in Catholicism, too. Beautiful churches, priestly vestments, sign of the cross, baptismal/saint names.

 

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Matt Lohrke said:

He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

You really shouldn’t limit Christ to the little we know about him in ancient scripture.  He is still alive and speaks today.

Edited October 4, 2019 by pogi

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Except for the tokens (whatever that means), we've got all of that in Catholicism, too. Beautiful churches, priestly vestments, sign of the cross, baptismal/saint names.

 

That’s what I was thinking. It’s also not out of character for God to establish religious rituals for groups of people, the Old Testament is replete with them. Even Adam and Eve sacrificed animals, I would imagine that the Lord gave them instruction on the proper way to perform that duty so they would remember the coming Messiah. 

[SettingDogStar]

Also, the ceremony you mentioned was lifted most likely from the first three degrees of Masonry. Neither of which are York or Scottish rites, they are the first three degrees all Masons must attend to before either studying in The York or Scottish schools of thought and degree, so wrong again.

If you were intending to say that he ripped off the Royal Arch of Enoch degree (which has three veils, guards, and the name of God revealed) then that is a York Rite.

[SettingDogStar]

19 hours ago, Matt Lohrke said:

This should be expected as the LDS endowment has been repurposed from the Scottish Free Mason Rites of Initiation (called "Exaltation").    This really isn't even debatable.  I can show you a side-by-side comparison.

Christ told us to offer him a broken heart and a contrite spirit.   He said nothing about opulent buildings, special clothing, hand signs, new names, tokens or anything else. 

Also, the ceremony you mentioned was lifted most likely from the first three degrees of Masonry. None of which are York or Scottish rites. They are the first three degrees all Masons must attend to before either studying in The York or Scottish schools of thought and degree, so I’d do a little more digging there.

If you were intending to say that he ripped off the Royal Arch of Enoch degree (which has three veils, guards, and the name of God revealed) then that is a York Rite, not Scottish. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by SettingDogStar