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

[provoman]

I have only read news articles on the handbook update; but I have to wonder have we as people mussed the mark?

It seems pretty clear to me what specifically in the Temple is not to be shared...but we humans, for some reason like to imppse more regulation on ourselves and made the whole Temple experience hush hush.

I saw there was some about not judging, and all I could think was "Isn't that was Jesus taught 2000 years ago".  Then there is the "reliable information" part, I just shook my head because didn't Joseph Smith teach about learning from all good books?

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 hours ago, rongo said:

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). 

That's how I've always taught temple prep as well.

For what it's worth, the current (and long-used manual) includes the following regarding covenants:

Quote

Elder James E. Talmage said about the covenants we make in the endowment:

“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, rev. ed. [1976], 84).

You may want to review the covenants just described by writing them on the chalkboard. Emphasize that we make covenants to be righteous and pure, and we also make covenants to give all we have to building the Lord’s kingdom. Read the following statement:

“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” (Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, 35).

So I've always written out the temple covenants as directed here as well. It is admittedly nice to have them in slightly more specific language in the handbook.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

19 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.

I think it is very helpful to be as explicit as possible about the covenants being made in the temple far before a person enters to make them. I am happy about this clarification.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

I’m obviously using a different application of what “literal” entails. Do you see that I’m referring to the script and instructions that are not included in the Handbook? See the red highlights in my quote below:

11 hours 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.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by CV75

[CV75]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, we discuss those covenants (not the script and related particulars of the in-person experience), and I think the Handbook teaches correct principles for the readers to govern themselves.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m obviously using a different application of what “literal” entails. Do you see that I’m referring to the script and instructions that are not included in the Handbook? See the red highlights in my quote below:

Well, these changes could not be discussed outside the temple before, now they can.   They are among the most sacred parts of the ceremony, which causes me to interpret the guidelines different from you.  

If the church’s intent is to provide general guidance and let members govern themselves, as you suggest, is it appropriate for members to tell other members what specifically they should or should not share above and beyond what was specifically mentioned?

Edited December 19, 2020 by pogi

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m obviously using a different application of what “literal” entails. Do you see that I’m referring to the script and instructions that are not included in the Handbook? See the red highlights in my quote below:

If you scroll further down, there is more explicit discussion of what occurs during the presentation of the Endowment. 

 

[PacMan]

23 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 covenants have been on the church’s website for a long time. President Benson gave a talk at BYU ages ago about them as well.  As far as my experience tells, the covenants themselves have never been secret. Nice to have them in the handbook. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Well, these changes could not be discussed outside the temple before, now they can.   They are among the most sacred parts of the ceremony, which causes me to interpret the guidelines different from you.  

If the church’s intent is to provide general guidance and let members govern themselves, as you suggest, is it appropriate for members to tell other members what specifically they should or should not share above and beyond what was specifically mentioned?

It is a change to Handbook language, perhaps, but publications such as "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer (1980), various Ensign articles, and various scholarly works over the years (Nibley comes to mind, and anything that ties the temple covenants to particular scriptures which are available for all to see) discussed them all along.

I'm not sure I understand your question; my go-to is "It depends". A moderator seems to have given you a response about what will be allowed on MDDB.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

If you scroll further down, there is more explicit discussion of what occurs during the presentation of the Endowment. 

Thank you. If you are pointing to 27.2, I don't see this varying from what I recall reading in other publications I consider to be "Church-friendly" (e.g. Packer and Nibley's books) or discussing on my own over the years.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

The covenants have been on the church’s website for a long time. President Benson gave a talk at BYU ages ago about them as well.  As far as my experience tells, the covenants themselves have never been secret. Nice to have them in the handbook. 

This has been my experience as well.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is a change to Handbook language, perhaps, but publications such as "The Holy Temple" by Boyd K. Packer (1980), various Ensign articles, and various scholarly works over the years (Nibley comes to mind, and anything that ties the temple covenants to particular scriptures which are available for all to see) discussed them all along.

I'm not sure I understand your question; my go-to is "It depends". A moderator seems to have given you a response about what will be allowed on MDDB.

I’m not talking about the moderators response.  I am fine with that in relation to these forums.  This is their domain and they have the right to impose whatever rules they want.

I am suggesting that beyond that exception, perhaps it is inappropriate to tell other endowed members what they can and can’t share outside the temple beyond what was explicitly stated in the handbook - the same way we treat tithing.  Your take is just one possible interpretation.  I read it differently.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I’m not talking about the moderators response.  I am fine with that in relation to these forums.  This is their domain and they have the right to impose whatever rules they want.

I am suggesting that beyond that exception, perhaps it is inappropriate to tell other endowed members what they can and can’t share outside the temple beyond what was explicitly stated in the handbook - the same way we treat tithing.  Your take is just one possible interpretation.  I read it differently.

That is why, as I said before, I think it is very important to create a sacred space when describing and discussing what goes on the temple, and that I take 27.2 to be an example of the more general, "basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances” and are appropriate for discussion in any forum or venue.

[pogi]

 

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is why, as I said before, I think it is very important to create a sacred space when describing and discussing what goes on the temple, and that I take 27.2 to be an example of the more general, "basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances” and are appropriate for discussion in any forum or venue.

In your opinion, has nothing changed then, other than including the ordinances in the handbook?  Or, are you suggesting that the new guidelines allows us to discuss more, but not in open forum spaces? 

If the covenants were officially published by the church with permission granted to discuss them in open forum outside the temple, then maybe this really isn't much of a change.  I personally have never seen that though.  You mention a couple sources, but I would appreciate a link.  Not because I doubt you, but just for research sake.  Everything I have seen before is vague and doesn't use exact language.  Nothing that I have seen says "these are the covenants you will make in the temple... feel free to discuss them outside the temple."  If I would have posted the temple covenants as outlined in the handbook for discussion, I guarantee that it would not have been tolerated here before this update.  I don't think I would have tolerated it.  So, this is a big change for me personally.

On 12/18/2020 at 3:05 PM, CV75 said:

"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.

It is hard to discuss the "purpose" of the text, and "doctrine" surrounding the text if we are not allowed to discuss the text itself.  It would be like trying to study the scriptures without being able to use the scriptures. 

I agree that the temple should be discussed with sacred reverence and is probably best to not dissect it in forums such as this, but I don't see why the script from the video should be off-limits in discussing the purposes and doctrine with reverence outside the temple when the most sacred covenants are not off limits.  It is almost as if we are making the text more sacred than the covenants themselves, and that doesn't make much spiritual sense to me.  For me it is like, hey, we just revealed some of our most sacred pearls of the temple, so why are we hiding the oyster surrounding the pearls (especially when it is not specifically or clearly proscribed in the handbook while other parts are)?  These are just things running through my mind I am throwing out there for others to help me digest. 

Edited December 20, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

 

In your opinion, has nothing changed then, other than including the ordinances in the handbook?  Or, are you suggesting that the new guidelines allows us to discuss more, but not in open forum spaces? 

If the covenants were officially published by the church with permission granted to discuss them in open forum outside the temple, then maybe this really isn't much of a change.  I personally have never seen that though.  You mention a couple sources, but I would appreciate a link.  Not because I doubt you, but just for research sake.  Everything I have seen before is vague and doesn't use exact language.  Nothing that I have seen says "these are the covenants you will make in the temple... feel free to discuss them outside the temple."  If I would have posted the temple covenants as outlined in the handbook for discussion, I guarantee that it would not have been tolerated here before this update.  I don't think I would have tolerated it.  So, this is a big change for me personally.

It is hard to discuss the "purpose" of the text, and "doctrine" surrounding the text if we are not allowed to discuss the text itself.  It would be like trying to study the scriptures without being able to use the scriptures. 

I agree that the temple should be discussed with sacred reverence and is probably best to not dissect it in forums such as this, but I don't see why the script from the video should be off-limits in discussing the purposes and doctrine with reverence outside the temple when the most sacred covenants are not off limits.  It is almost as if we are making the text more sacred than the covenants themselves, and that doesn't make much spiritual sense to me.  For me it is like, hey, we just revealed some of our most sacred pearls of the temple, so why are we hiding the oyster surrounding the pearls (especially when it is not specifically or clearly proscribed in the handbook while other parts are)?  These are just things running through my mind I am throwing out there for others to help me digest. 

I find that the Handbook contains guidance that is often developed because enough leaders have been asking the questions and seeking the guidance. For me, nothing has changed, but for those who had the questions, I’m sure it is of great help and may have changed their approach (whether to share more, or less temple content). For me, if I am in someone’s home, with a Church leader, or here, for example, I will adopt the more conservative attitude (mine or theirs).

Typically, an officiator presents the script and particulars. I think quoting the script and otherwise previewing the particulars in preparing an initiate for the temple needs to be weighed with our authority to officiate, to do sacred things in wisdom and order (both for us and in behalf of the initiate), and the discerned needs of the initiate.

I will try to find those links and post later -- I looked up a couple while preparing earlier answers but chose not to list them. Packer's book can be accessed/purchased easily.

Edited December 20, 2020 by CV75