General Handbook Update Includes Temple Covenants and What Can't be Shared

[bluebell]

Nofear shared in the news section about the general handbook update today, and one of the sections that was updated is on Temple covenants.

Quote

 

Chapter 27: “Temple Ordinances for the Living” includes updated information for members receiving their own endowment or preparing to be sealed or married in the temple.

Elder Kevin R. Duncan, a General Authority Seventy and Executive Director of the Temple Department, said many temple-related updates are designed to help members understand the importance of covenants. 

For example, members have often struggled to know how much detail they can say about the ordinances in the temple. “Now, for the first time, included in a handbook are the actual covenants that members enter into in the temple. And they receive guidance on what they can say and what they cannot say,” Elder Duncan said. 

 

Here is the section in question.

I know in the past some posters have lamented that the church does not share the covenants made in the temple beforehand so that people can know what they are promising before they promise it.  And we've also had discussions and disagreements on what is appropriate to say about the temple and what isn't.

The new update covers both things thoroughly.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nofear shared in the news section about the general handbook update today, and one of the sections that was updated is on Temple covenants.

Here is the section in question.

I know in the past some posters have lamented that the church does not share the covenants made in the temple beforehand so that people can know what they are promising before they promise it.  And we've also had discussions and disagreements on what is appropriate to say about the temple and what isn't.

The new update covers both things thoroughly.

This is very welcome news. 

It appears that there is very little that can't be discussed outside the temple, if I am not misunderstanding:

Quote

Temple covenants and ordinances are sacred. The symbols associated with temple covenants should not be discussed outside the temple. Nor should we discuss the holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal. However, we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple.

Does this mean that in discussing the basic purposes, it is appropriate to use most of the language in the endowment and video, except for the 2 prohibited areas mentioned above?  It doesn't seem to be prohibited.  Understanding and preparing for the covenants they will make beforehand will assuredly ease anxiety for many preparing to receive their endowments.  

 

 

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Nofear shared in the news section about the general handbook update today, and one of the sections that was updated is on Temple covenants.

Here is the section in question.

I know in the past some posters have lamented that the church does not share the covenants made in the temple beforehand so that people can know what they are promising before they promise it.  And we've also had discussions and disagreements on what is appropriate to say about the temple and what isn't.

The new update covers both things thoroughly.

This definitely an improvement. I wonder if any similar updates have been made for the temple preparation manual.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is very welcome news. 

It appears that there is very little that can't be discussed outside the temple, if I am not misunderstanding:

Does this mean that in discussing the basic purposes, it is appropriate to use most of the language in the endowment and video, except for the 2 prohibited areas mentioned above?  It doesn't seem to be prohibited.  Understanding and preparing for the covenants they will make beforehand will assuredly ease anxiety for many preparing to receive their endowments.  

That's how I've always understood it, and I've acted accordingly. There are things we covenant not to discuss or divulge, but nothing else is secret. 

I've shared this before, but when I was a bishop the first time, a convert had a very bad experience going through the temple. She ended up being more than fine (she was later one of my Relief Society presidents), but when I complained to the stake presidency about the woeful inadequacy of the temple prep manual and class, I was told that I should do whatever I needed to do to prepare my ward members for the temple. So, I did. I made sure no one would ever have feel blindsided by anything, without discussing things we covenant not to. I went through the covenants we make, and where they are in the scriptures. I pointed them to scriptures that discuss the clothing, and I provided the overview of the big picture and how everything fits within that (we make covenants while participating in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama encompasses the pre-existence, the creation, the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Restoration. Everything fits in this big picture). 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This definitely an improvement. I wonder if any similar updates have been made for the temple preparation manual.

One can hope. The temple prep manual literally is just basics from "Gospel Principles." As far as actually preparing people for the temple, it doesn't even seek to do that. 

Regardless, leaders should take it upon themselves to make sure that their people are prepared, without relying on a manual or a class. 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

One can hope. The temple prep manual literally is just basics from "Gospel Principles." As far as actually preparing people for the temple, it doesn't even seek to do that. 

Regardless, leaders should take it upon themselves to make sure that their people are prepared, without relying on a manual or a class. 

I was wondering because there is still some old information in the current temple prep manual:

"There are some cases of course in which the ineligible parent is offended and will not be placated. In those cases the young couple will just have to make the best of it. The question may come up: Well, then, should we be married civilly so that they can witness the marriage, then we would wait for the necessary year before entering the temple? But that would not be the ideal solution. Prayerful and careful planning in most cases can make the problem transform itself into an opportunity that ultimately will bring the family closer together than it previously had been." (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple)

General Handbook:
Where temple marriages are not legally recognized, authorized Church leaders or others can perform civil marriages that are followed by a temple sealing (see 38.3). This pattern may also be followed when a temple marriage could cause parents or immediate family members to feel excluded because they cannot attend the temple ceremony.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by JAHS

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's how I've always understood it, and I've acted accordingly. There are things we covenant not to discuss or divulge, but nothing else is secret. 

I've shared this before, but when I was a bishop the first time, a convert had a very bad experience going through the temple. She ended up being more than fine (she was later one of my Relief Society presidents), but when I complained to the stake presidency about the woeful inadequacy of the temple prep manual and class, I was told that I should do whatever I needed to do to prepare my ward members for the temple. So, I did. I made sure no one would ever have feel blindsided by anything, without discussing things we covenant not to. I went through the covenants we make, and where they are in the scriptures. I pointed them to scriptures that discuss the clothing, and I provided the overview of the big picture and how everything fits within that (we make covenants while participating in a drama where we identify ourselves with Adam and Eve. The drama encompasses the pre-existence, the creation, the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Restoration. Everything fits in this big picture). 

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

One can hope. The temple prep manual literally is just basics from "Gospel Principles." As far as actually preparing people for the temple, it doesn't even seek to do that. 

Regardless, leaders should take it upon themselves to make sure that their people are prepared, without relying on a manual or a class. 

You were a good bishop.

 

[pogi]

Perhaps it is in order for the board guidelines to be updated to reflect the general handbook update.  Instead of saying "Do not post sacred temple content" - since it is all all sacred -  perhaps it should read, "Do not post symbols associated with temple covenants and other temple content that is promised not to reveal".  Or, perhaps the temple is just best left untouched on these sometimes toxic forums. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, rongo said:

One can hope. The temple prep manual literally is just basics from "Gospel Principles." As far as actually preparing people for the temple, it doesn't even seek to do that. 

Regardless, leaders should take it upon themselves to make sure that their people are prepared, without relying on a manual or a class. 

This is how my daughter felt about the classes - she already knew it.  It didn't help that her bishop required her to go through the class twice. 

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

This is how my daughter felt about the classes - she already knew it.  It didn't help that her bishop required her to go through the class twice. 

Ugggh! I got rid of the class altogether after that bad experience with it. I was the temple prep class, and it wasn't broken into that many "lessons." My wife's sister and children were sealed to her convert husband, and she's from an active family and has always been active. She was hoping for a meaty temple prep class she could sink her teeth into, and it was . . . Gospel Essential class. 

When my son received his endowment for his mission, I talked with him in the celestial room about the changes to the temple not too long before he went through, as well as the 1990 changes. And then it was pretty drastically changed last year as well. All of our children are going to know about the different changes, as I feel that what was changed and the symbolism is still very important, even though it isn't currently part of it any more. But, those conversations will be in the appropriate times and places. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by rongo

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ugggh! I got rid of the class altogether after that bad experience with it. I was the temple prep class, and it wasn't broken into that many "lessons." My wife's sister and children were sealed to her convert husband, and she's from an active family and has always been active. She was hoping for a meaty temple prep class she could sink her teeth into, and it was . . . Gospel Essential class. 

When my son received his endowment for his mission, I talked with him in the celestial room about the changes to the temple not too long before he went through, as well as the 1990 changes. And then it was pretty drastically changes last year as well. All of our children are going to know about the different changes, as I feel that what was changed and the symbolism is still very important, even though it isn't currently part of it any more. But, those conversations will be in the appropriate times and places. 

I did not have a good first experience.  My total prep about the temple other than the gospel essentials kind of stuff throughout my youth was literally "read the Pearl of Great Price" and you wear garments afterwards.  I have been back many times and have had good experiences and worked with the Lord and leaders, but that first time so bothered me that I don't ever look forward going to it and have to force myself to go each time.  

So I have been very open with my children about the temple.  Interesting what the handbook says because that's how I have felt about teaching my children.  And I'm so glad because my daughter loves going to the temple and was so prepared on her own anyway, but also with my help. My youngest son, because of his summer birthday went just a couple of weeks before he left on his mission and it went well so I'm glad I was open with him too.

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, Rain said:

I did not have a good first experience.  My total prep about the temple other than the gospel essentials kind of stuff throughout my youth was literally "read the Pearl of Great Price" and you wear garments afterwards.  I have been back many times and have had good experiences and worked with the Lord and leaders, but that first time so bothered me that I don't ever look forward going to it and have to force myself to go each time.  

So I have been very open with my children about the temple.  Interesting what the handbook says because that's how I have felt about teaching my children.  And I'm so glad because my daughter loves going to the temple and was so prepared on her own anyway, but also with my help. My youngest son, because of his summer birthday went just a couple of weeks before he left on his mission and it went well so I'm glad I was open with him too.

That's a good point. It's even more the job of the parents to prepare children for the temple than it is for priesthood leaders. 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's a good point. It's even more the job of the parents to prepare children for the temple than it is for priesthood leaders. 

And it's good for the handbook info parents to know what they can say.  My bishop told me that my parents would tell me what I needed to know.  It was my dad who told me " read the Pearl of Great Price".  My parents still are pretty closed mouthed about the temple. I've had to warn my very open daughter to be careful how to discuss the temple with them. She is always respectful, but they just don't discuss it much. 

[Duncan]

I had absolutely no temple training or anything prior to serving. No one told me ticketey-boo about the temple. Back then (1998) there were only two Canadian temples and one was closed. So I went to the MTC unendowed, People lost their minds that I wasn't endowed.  I remember thinking the entire time well, if my folks can do this and they turned out allright then it can't be that bad! I would say thought that I really fell in love so to speak with temples and temple work at the MTC just because it was so close and you could actually go without making it a huge excursion.

[Rain]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I had absolutely no temple training or anything prior to serving. No one told me ticketey-boo about the temple. Back then (1998) there were only two Canadian temples and one was closed. So I went to the MTC unendowed, People lost their minds that I wasn't endowed.  I remember thinking the entire time well, if my folks can do this and they turned out allright then it can't be that bad! I would say thought that I really fell in love so to speak with temples and temple work at the MTC just because it was so close and you could actually go without making it a huge excursion.

There was an elder in my district that hadn't gone through, but I don't remember a big deal made out of that.  But that may be because it was early 1990 and years before you went so things might have changed or just that I didn't see that side of it.   We went through as a district with him. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

There was an elder in my district that hadn't gone through, but I don't remember a big deal made out of that.  But that may be because it was early 1990 and years before you went so things might have changed or just that I didn't see that side of it.   We went through as a district with him. 

I think my district went through with me, at least i recall my MTC companion being my escort and I remember sitting in the Provo temple dumbstruck and processing everything and the sister missionaries we're like, "well, what did you think?" ummmmmmmmmmmmm well, if my folks can do it or did it hahahhahahahhahaha!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Nofear shared in the news section about the general handbook update today, and one of the sections that was updated is on Temple covenants.

Here is the section in question.

I know in the past some posters have lamented that the church does not share the covenants made in the temple beforehand so that people can know what they are promising before they promise it.  And we've also had discussions and disagreements on what is appropriate to say about the temple and what isn't.

The new update covers both things thoroughly.

The book, "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer (1980) I thought was very informative. I gave a copy to my wife as we were preparing to be married in the temple. 

I think it is very important to create a sacred space when describing and discussing what goes on the temple. From the Handbook Chapter 27:

"Temple covenants and ordinances are sacred. The symbols associated with temple covenants should not be discussed outside the temple. Nor should we discuss the holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal. However, we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple.

Ward and stake leaders discuss the information in this chapter with members who are preparing to receive the endowment or sealing ordinances."

"Discuss" and "basic" mean different things to different people of course. I think we are responsible for creating a sacred space when describing and discussing what goes on the temple. "Purposes" and "doctrine" are not the same as quoting text and dialogue used for the ordinances and presentations, and describing (or demonstrating) every detail.

Edited December 18, 2020 by CV75

[Nemesis]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Perhaps it is in order for the board guidelines to be updated to reflect the general handbook update.  Instead of saying "Do not post sacred temple content" - since it is all all sacred -  perhaps it should read, "Do not post symbols associated with temple covenants and other temple content that is promised not to reveal".  Or, perhaps the temple is just best left untouched on these sometimes toxic forums. 

I think the rules are in line with the church’s position.  
 

nemesis

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

I think the rules are in line with the church’s position.  
 

nemesis

Forgive me if I am a little unclear.  Is it ok to quote parts of the temple video on these boards then, so long as they are not the symbols and parts we promised not to reveal?  My understanding of the updated handbook suggests that most of it is ok to discuss (except for those parts).   I guess the confusion for me (and likely others in the future) is how you and other administrators might interpret the word "sacred" in the rules and how you might interpret the guidelines in the handbook. 

For example, to me, everything in the temple is "sacred", and if I was to follow a literal interpretation of the board rules, I couldn't discuss anything in the temple.  My interpretation of the handbook however, suggests that most of it is ok to discuss.   Not that the rules here need to be in line with the handbook, but if that is the intent, I personally feel that the word "sacred" might benefit from more specific clarification in the guidelines so we don't have to guess how the administrators might be interpreting "sacred LDS temple content".   I guess one potential benefit of being more specific is that we don't run the risk of implying that the parts that are ok to discuss are not sacred. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by pogi

[Nemesis]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Forgive me if I am a little unclear.  Is it ok to quote parts of the temple video on these boards then, so long as they are not the symbols and parts we promised not to reveal?  My understanding of the updated handbook suggests that most of it is ok to discuss (except for those parts).   I guess the confusion for me (and likely others in the future) is how you and other administrators might interpret the word "sacred" in the rules and how you might interpret the guidelines in the handbook. 

For example, to me, everything in the temple is "sacred", and if I was to follow a literal interpretation of the board rules, I couldn't discuss anything in the temple.  My interpretation of the handbook however, suggests that most of it is ok to discuss.   Not that the rules here need to be in line with the handbook, but if that is the intent, I personally feel that the word "sacred" might benefit from more specific clarification in the guidelines so we don't have to guess how the administrators might be interpreting "sacred LDS temple content".   I guess one potential benefit of being more specific is that we don't run the risk of implying that the parts that are ok to discuss are not sacred. 

 

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Forgive me if I am a little unclear.  Is it ok to quote parts of the temple video on these boards then, so long as they are not the symbols and parts we promised not to reveal?  My understanding of the updated handbook suggests that most of it is ok to discuss (except for those parts).   I guess the confusion for me (and likely others in the future) is how you and other administrators might interpret the word "sacred" in the rules and how you might interpret the guidelines in the handbook. 

For example, to me, everything in the temple is "sacred", and if I was to follow a literal interpretation of the board rules, I couldn't discuss anything in the temple.  My interpretation of the handbook however, suggests that most of it is ok to discuss.   Not that the rules here need to be in line with the handbook, but if that is the intent, I personally feel that the word "sacred" might benefit from more specific clarification in the guidelines so we don't have to guess how the administrators might be interpreting "sacred LDS temple content".   I guess one potential benefit of being more specific is that we don't run the risk of implying that the parts that are ok to discuss are not sacred. 

It is the intention of all board guidelines to allow me to evaluate topics or posts on a case by case basis.  I refuse to completely define what is allowed because there may be posters that will always try to skirt the rules and try to limit moderation .  
 

Nemesis

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Forgive me if I am a little unclear.  Is it ok to quote parts of the temple video on these boards then, so long as they are not the symbols and parts we promised not to reveal?  My understanding of the updated handbook suggests that most of it is ok to discuss (except for those parts).   I guess the confusion for me (and likely others in the future) is how you and other administrators might interpret the word "sacred" in the rules and how you might interpret the guidelines in the handbook. 

For example, to me, everything in the temple is "sacred", and if I was to follow a literal interpretation of the board rules, I couldn't discuss anything in the temple.  My interpretation of the handbook however, suggests that most of it is ok to discuss.   Not that the rules here need to be in line with the handbook, but if that is the intent, I personally feel that the word "sacred" might benefit from more specific clarification in the guidelines so we don't have to guess how the administrators might be interpreting "sacred LDS temple content".   I guess one potential benefit of being more specific is that we don't run the risk of implying that the parts that are ok to discuss are not sacred. 

I think the difference between the literal "temple covenants and ordinances" and the more general, "basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances" offers a good guideline of what the Handbook offers up for discussion in any forum or venue.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the difference between the literal "temple covenants and ordinances" and the more general, "basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances" offers a good guideline of what the Handbook offers up for discussion in any forum or venue.

Except the handbook (which is open forum for all members and non-members alike) itself discusses the literal temple covenants outside the temple doesn't suggest that we should restrain ourselves from doing the same.  In fact, it specifically encourages leaders to discuss the literal covenants outside the temple with those who may be preparing for the temple.  It only specifically mentions 2 things that are off the table to discuss outside the temple.

Edited December 19, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Except the handbook (which is open forum for all members and non-members alike) itself discusses the literal temple covenants outside the temple doesn't suggest that we should restrain ourselves from doing the same.  In fact, it specifically encourages leaders to discuss the literal covenants outside the temple with those who may be preparing for the temple.  It only specifically mentions 2 things that are off the table to discuss outside the temple.

The Handbook only says, "Ward and stake leaders discuss the information in this chapter with members who are preparing to receive the endowment or sealing ordinances." The information in this chapter is generous but far from comprehensive and descriptive, such as that found in the temple script.

It also says, "we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple." I take "we" to mean the general membership, and we are free to do that anywhere and anytime, hopefully with good discernment and judgment.

So, I don't think that can rightly be synthesized into something like, "General membership may discuss scared endowment or sealing ordinance information such as the script and instructions (which are not specified in this chapter but are documented in temple handbooks and instructions, the Library of Congress, the more erudite and progressive blogs and anti-mormon websites)..."

I suppose some among the general membership might opt to discuss (and even respectfully reenact, recite or demonstrate) this information since the Handbook doesn't proscribe it specifically and says nothing about the administrative consequences for those who do.

But if your question is strictly about discussion on this forum, I see that has been answered.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by CV75

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Handbook only says, "Ward and stake leaders discuss the information in this chapter with members who are preparing to receive the endowment or sealing ordinances." The information in this chapter is generous but far from comprehensive and descriptive, such as that found in the temple script.

It also says, "we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple." I take "we" to mean the general membership, and we are free to do that anywhere and anytime, hopefully with good discernment and judgment.

So, I don't think that can rightly be synthesized into something like, "General membership may discuss scared endowment or sealing ordinance information such as the script and instructions (which are not specified in this chapter but are documented in temple handbooks and instructions, the Library of Congress, the more erudite and progressive blogs and anti-mormon websites)..."

I suppose some among the general membership might opt to discuss (and even respectfully reenact, recite or demonstrate) this information since the Handbook doesn't proscribe it specifically and says nothing about the administrative consequences for those who do.

But if your question is strictly about discussion on this forum, I see that has been answered.

 

Again though, the “literal temple covenants” were spelled out, which you suggest we can’t do.

There were only 2 prohibitions.  If nothing is to be discussed except in unspecific references to general principles, then this is really nothing new.  However, the inclusion of the literal covenants themselves in the handbook leads me (and others here) to interpret the new guidelines different from you.  If they didn’t want members to discuss things other than what was specifically prohibited, they should have been more clear.  You have to admit there is more than sufficient room for my interpretation in their wording.  If I am misunderstanding it however, I guarantee that it will be a common misunderstanding and  the wording should be reconsidered.

Edited December 19, 2020 by pogi

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The Handbook only says, "Ward and stake leaders discuss the information in this chapter with members who are preparing to receive the endowment or sealing ordinances." The information in this chapter is generous but far from comprehensive and descriptive, such as that found in the temple script.

It also says, "we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple." I take "we" to mean the general membership, and we are free to do that anywhere and anytime, hopefully with good discernment and judgment.

So, I don't think that can rightly be synthesized into something like, "General membership may discuss scared endowment or sealing ordinance information such as the script and instructions (which are not specified in this chapter but are documented in temple handbooks and instructions, the Library of Congress, the more erudite and progressive blogs and anti-mormon websites)..."

I suppose some among the general membership might opt to discuss (and even respectfully reenact, recite or demonstrate) this information since the Handbook doesn't proscribe it specifically and says nothing about the administrative consequences for those who do.

But if your question is strictly about discussion on this forum, I see that has been answered.

 

The changes to the handbook now include the temple covenants, which would seem to imply that we are allowed to discuss those covenants.  

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable quoting the script unless it was specifically a teaching moment or something similar.  I've known many good members who feel fine quoting the temple script almost like they would quote other movies--to be funny.  They don't mean anything disrespectful by doing it but I don't agree with it myself.