I Have A Temple Question...

[Maureen]

I haven't been around for sometime so this may have already been mentioned.

I was visiting a different 'Mormon-type' site and the discussion there has been about the Initiatory changes (aka Washings & Anointings).

Are the changes true and official? If so, then that makes me happy? The Initiatory part of Temple stuff was always confusing to me. From what I've read, it seems they have changed for the better.

M.

[Maureen]

It seems everyone's shy.

I'll ask another question. It appears the changes are true so how do most people here feel about the changes? Are you happy with the changes?

M.

[StrawberryFields]

I think that you should know this but just in case you don't I will tell you that most faithful members don't discuss sacred temple matters on a message board.

[Jenda]

Maybe you can PM each other.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jan 21 2005, 09:39 AM

I think that you should know this but just in case you don't I will tell you that most faithful members don't discuss sacred temple matters on a message board.

SF, I'm not asking you discuss the specifics about the Temple, just curious about how members feel about the changes - that's all.

M.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jan 21 2005, 11:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jan 21 2005, 11:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jan 21 2005, 09:39 AM

I think that you should know this but just in case you don't I will tell you that most faithful members don't discuss sacred temple matters on a message board.

SF, I'm not asking you discuss the specifics about the Temple, just curious about how members feel about the changes - that's all.

M.

When and if changes are made there is not any formal announcement that is made. To be honest, your question was the first I had heard of it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I've been meaning to do some initiatories, partly because it's been way too long since I did them and also to jog my memory on something that occurred to me during the temple recommend interview. If there's a change, I'll notice, although I also have mixed feelings about even discussing the matter in this context.

As for the general question of how I feel about changes in the temple ceremony, my big-picture approach to the Church is this: It contains the fulness of the true gospel. It also contains a certain amount of nineteenth-century cultural baggage and doctrinal speculation, the natural result of fallible humans having a part in the Church's governance. The core principles of the gospel do not change. Parts of the temple ceremony have changed. Therefore, those parts of the temple ceremony are not part of the gospel's doctrinal core.

[john doe]

My limited understanding on the matter is that the changes are minor and relate mostly to personal modesty in the garment used in the ceremony. From what I have read, the changes would probably only be noticeable to those who regularly do initiatory work.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 21 2005, 01:39 PM

My limited understanding on the matter is that the changes are minor and relate mostly to personal modesty in the garment used in the ceremony. From what I have read, the changes would probably only be noticeable to those who regularly do initiatory work.

This is my understanding too. I view the changes as good, especially for future participants. The Initiatory work doesn't have to be such a surprise (possibly shock) - it can be something quite special and a lot more comfortable, IMO.

M.

[Guest JRodan]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 21 2005, 02:39 PM

My limited understanding on the matter is that the changes are minor and relate mostly to personal modesty in the garment used in the ceremony. From what I have read, the changes would probably only be noticeable to those who regularly do initiatory work.

Whew! Well, that's a relief. So, you don't think it could be construed as a possible sign of apostacy, do you?

I was also wondering where you "read" about the changes.

[john doe]

I was also wondering where you "read" about the changes.

I followed a link someone posted on another board to an "anti" site that supposedly had the text of the changes. If the information they presented is faked, they went to a lot of trouble to produce supposed changes as tame as what I saw. The changes I saw were, as I said before, more related to personal modesty in relation to the garment used in the initiatory ceremony, nothing really there for an anti to complain about, so I see no reason for them to have given fake information on this issue.

[srm]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jan 21 2005, 11:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jan 21 2005, 11:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Maureen@Jan 21 2005, 11:35 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jan 21 2005, 09:39 AM

I think that you should know this but just in case you don't I will tell you that most faithful members don't discuss sacred temple matters on a message board.

SF, I'm not asking you discuss the specifics about the Temple, just curious about how members feel about the changes - that's all.

M.

When and if changes are made there is not any formal announcement that is made. To be honest, your question was the first I had heard of it.

This is not correct. The last time they made some changes to the endowment there was a recorded message that spoke about it.

[srm]

Originally posted by john doe@Jan 21 2005, 05:01 PM

I was also wondering where you "read" about the changes.

I followed a link someone posted on another board to an "anti" site that supposedly had the text of the changes. If the information they presented is faked, they went to a lot of trouble to produce supposed changes as tame as what I saw. The changes I saw were, as I said before, more related to personal modesty in relation to the garment used in the initiatory ceremony, nothing really there for an anti to complain about, so I see no reason for them to have given fake information on this issue.

could you please send me the link?

[john doe]

could you please send me the link?

I didn't bookmark it, but I think it was a place called Folks in the Foyer or View from the Foyer or something like that. I believe I saw the link on Fairboards. It may have since been taken down for all I know.

[Amillia]

Changes are necessary as the world changes and people's sensitivities become more open for discussion.

[Guest JRodan]

TheProudDuck wrote:

As for the general question of how I feel about changes in the temple ceremony, my big-picture approach to the Church is this: It contains the fulness of the true gospel. It also contains a certain amount of nineteenth-century cultural baggage and doctrinal speculation, the natural result of fallible humans having a part in the Church's governance.

So which parts are the fulness of the true gospel and which are merely cultural baggage?

The core principles of the gospel do not change.

What are those core principles that cannot change? According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, those core principles include the covenants he revealed. Do you agree?

The Prophet of the Restoration also taught that polygamy was one of those eternal, core principles of the gospel. Do you agree?

Parts of the temple ceremony have changed. Therefore, those parts of the temple ceremony are not part of the gospel's doctrinal core.

So why were they ever necessary, or were they?

Nearly every covenant and ordinance in the temple has undergone some change since Joseph Smith first revealed them in their "perfect form" so what's left of core substance after all the changes?

Suppose the church conducts a survey of eight year-olds and recent converts and finds that a majority of them don't like being baptized by immersion. Suppose based on that survey, the church changes the ordinance to a sprinkling of water. Should we accept that change?

[Snow]

Originally posted by JRodan@Jan 22 2005, 04:18 AM

Suppose the church conducts a survey of eight year-olds and recent converts and finds that a majority of them don't like being baptized by immersion. Suppose based on that survey, the church changes the ordinance to a sprinkling of water. Should we accept that change?

Good thinking JRodan,

I appreciate a man who bypasses the rhetorical and gets right to the bottom line

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 21 2005, 12:03 PM

I've been meaning to do some initiatories, partly because it's been way too long since I did them and also to jog my memory on something that occurred to me during the temple recommend interview. If there's a change, I'll notice, although I also have mixed feelings about even discussing the matter in this context.

As for the general question of how I feel about changes in the temple ceremony, my big-picture approach to the Church is this: It contains the fulness of the true gospel. It also contains a certain amount of nineteenth-century cultural baggage and doctrinal speculation, the natural result of fallible humans having a part in the Church's governance. The core principles of the gospel do not change. Parts of the temple ceremony have changed. Therefore, those parts of the temple ceremony are not part of the gospel's doctrinal core.

Excelletn response!

[Cal]

Originally posted by JRodan@Jan 22 2005, 05:18 AM

TheProudDuck wrote:

As for the general question of how I feel about changes in the temple ceremony, my big-picture approach to the Church is this: It contains the fulness of the true gospel. It also contains a certain amount of nineteenth-century cultural baggage and doctrinal speculation, the natural result of fallible humans having a part in the Church's governance.

So which parts are the fulness of the true gospel and which are merely cultural baggage?

The core principles of the gospel do not change.

What are those core principles that cannot change? According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, those core principles include the covenants he revealed. Do you agree?

The Prophet of the Restoration also taught that polygamy was one of those eternal, core principles of the gospel. Do you agree?

Parts of the temple ceremony have changed. Therefore, those parts of the temple ceremony are not part of the gospel's doctrinal core.

So why were they ever necessary, or were they?

Nearly every covenant and ordinance in the temple has undergone some change since Joseph Smith first revealed them in their "perfect form" so what's left of core substance after all the changes?

Suppose the church conducts a survey of eight year-olds and recent converts and finds that a majority of them don't like being baptized by immersion. Suppose based on that survey, the church changes the ordinance to a sprinkling of water. Should we accept that change?

Rodan--what you don't seem to realize, at least by your response, is that if PD couldn't take that position, it would be really hard for him to maintain a belief in the church. He is a rational person, who needs for the church to make sense. This is the only way it can, and still allow him to ramain a faithful member.

PD--I don't mean to speak for you, but your response resonates with me, because it is also the only way I maintain any kind of loyalty to the Church.

Rodan--your position is the one that takes people out of the church. It has a certain logic and is a rational position---but if one wants to stay in the church, he must find a rational way of accounting for the changes and the ambiguities. PD's is the one that makes most sense to me--if anyone has a better one than that, I'ld like to hear it. (Ok, Snow does it with comedy, wit and irony--it works for him)

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by srm+Jan 21 2005, 09:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Jan 21 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jan 21 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by -Maureen@Jan 21 2005, 11:35 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jan 21 2005, 09:39 AM

I think that you should know this but just in case you don't I will tell you that most faithful members don't discuss sacred temple matters on a message board.

SF, I'm not asking you discuss the specifics about the Temple, just curious about how members feel about the changes - that's all.

M.

When and if changes are made there is not any formal announcement that is made. To be honest, your question was the first I had heard of it.

This is not correct. The last time they made some changes to the endowment there was a recorded message that spoke about it.

Really?

Where was the recorded message given?