Temple Recommends

[bytor2112]

Have the requirements to obtain a Temple recommend changed over the years? If yes, what specifically?

Thanks,

Bytor

[pam]

Is there something specific you think might have changed or just asking generally?

[bytor2112]

Um...requirements...questions? Have they always asked the same questions or have some been added and/or some removed.

[O2BNSD]

From what I understand, they are pretty much the same, but you would be better off asking your Stake President, that way you will get the best & most current answer.

[RMGuy]

Have the requirements to obtain a Temple recommend changed over the years? If yes, what specifically?

Thanks,

Bytor

I know for sure that questions regarding WoW were not added until either the 40's or 50's...the question on associating with apostates was a bit before that. Somewhere I have a document that shows when those were added, but the short answer to your question is that yes the questions that are asked with relation to the TR interview have changed over time.

-RM

[uniderth]

Yes, they have. Admission into the Kirtland temple was open to anyone. Regular worship services were done in the Kirtland temple. Participation in the Kirtland endowment was done by invitation.

The Nauvoo Temple had a similar structure with regular worship services being done within. The Nauvoo endowment was was done only in the attic portion of the Nauvoo Temple. Participation in the Nauvoo Endowment was done by being personally invited by a leader of the church. Also during Joseph Smith's time one must have been previously initiated into Freemasonry before participating in the Nauvoo Endowment.

I'm not sure the exact date as to when temple recommend interviews with specific questions began. But this practiced evolved later.

[slamjet]

Just remember the "No" answer

[bytebear]

Yes, they have. Admission into the Kirtland temple was open to anyone. Regular worship services were done in the Kirtland temple. Participation in the Kirtland endowment was done by invitation.

The Nauvoo Temple had a similar structure with regular worship services being done within. The Nauvoo endowment was was done only in the attic portion of the Nauvoo Temple. Participation in the Nauvoo Endowment was done by being personally invited by a leader of the church. Also during Joseph Smith's time one must have been previously initiated into Freemasonry before participating in the Nauvoo Endowment.

I'm not sure the exact date as to when temple recommend interviews with specific questions began. But this practiced evolved later.

The Kirtland temple acted more like the New York City temple. This was before chapels or tabernacles, so it was a tabernacle/chapel/temple combo. Interestingly it had curtains that could divide the room into smaller rooms, presumably for classes, and then also for endowment sessions. The NYC temple is a combo temple/chapel, and parts of it are open to everyone.

As for the recommend questions, the most recent addition is the question about living up to your requirements in terms of child and spousal support if you are divorced - it's a more specific follow up to being honest with dealings with your fellow men.

In the early church, members were invited to be endowed, so it was more like a calling than it is today. Also, back then, the invitation came straight from Joseph Smith.

Edited March 1, 2012 by bytebear

[uniderth]

Also of not in relation to being endowed as more of a calling. Most of those who received their endowment entered what was called the Anointed Quorum. This was an actual quorum with Joseph Smith as the president. They discussed gospel related topics and received revelations and mysteries.

[Just_A_Guy]

Aren't there records of dances being held in the uncompleted lower portions of the Nauvoo Temple?

[Jason_J]

The Kirtland temple acted more like the New York City temple. This was before chapels or tabernacles, so it was a tabernacle/chapel/temple combo. Interestingly it had curtains that could divide the room into smaller rooms, presumably for classes, and then also for endowment sessions. The NYC temple is a combo temple/chapel, and parts of it are open to everyone.

Yes, I was actually at the Manhattan Temple today! Basically the first floor is divided between the temple entrance and the regular entrance. The first floor of the temple also has the baptistry. The second floor has the distribution center and the public affairs office, the third floor has the chapel and cultural hall (and some other rooms), and the 4th, 5th and 6th floors are all the temple. Pretty interesting. On Sundays, Mondays, and other days when the temple is closed, they open up the temple elevator (you can access it from inside the temple or they open up this wall or something when the temple is closed) and it goes up to the public floors.

[uniderth]

Yes, dances were held in both the Kirtland and Nauvoo Temples. Endowment ordinances were only carried out on the attic floor. Usually these were office spaces but during endowment the office things were moved out of the way and curtains put up for the endowment. The Nauvoo Endowment was also done in the upper floor of the Red Brick store. This was also divided by curtains.

[bytebear]

And in Utah, before the Salt Lake Temple was built, they had an endowment house, which was essentially a temporary temple. But they got an idea to build a tabernacle next to the temple to separate their purposes. The older temples (Salt Lake, Manti, Logan and St George) have tabernacles nearby, used for church services and cultural events. The Ogden temple also has a tabernacle next door, and many of the early cities founded by the Saints had tabernacles. I am sure there are other examples out there. As the church grew, tabernacles were replaced with churches with a chapel, classrooms, a cultural hall/basketball court and a full stage with lights a curtain and everything. In the 80s, the church stopped with the stages and the designs have slightly changed over the years but basketball courts stayed! It's interesting to see the evolution of church buildings.

[uniderth]

The Plat of Nauvoo shows a circular canvas covered tabernacle in front of the Nauvoo Temple. The Canvas for this tabernacle was purchased but later used to make wagon covers. This layout probably influenced the location of the tabernacle in relation to the Salt lake Temple.

As far as the dances are concerned it's important the remember that originally worship included the physical element. Dancing, shouting Hallelujahs, raising arms give the sacrament prayer etc. Today this has been lost and we associate worship and spirituality with focusing inward, eliminating the physical from the equation. We sit silently in the Celestial room. We also sit silently in sacrament. This si completely different than early church history and even ancient Christianity.

I'm not saying that such a transition is inherently good or bad, that would depend on your beliefs about the church. It's just history.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Fall 2008 Journal of Mormon History published an article on the Endowment House that mentions that even the Salt Lake Temple was originally conceived as having two assembly rooms superimposed on each other (and the St. George temple was built this way, with the endowment being administered in the attic which was temporarily partitioned in much the same way as the Nauvoo Temple's had been). The scrapping of the the planned lower assembly hall in favor of progressive endowment rooms was a relatively late decision and apparently not without some controversy.

Uniderth, have you gotten wind of the FLDS' latest construction project on the YFZ ranch? Looks suspiciously like the planned Nauvoo tabernacle, only on a far larger scale.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Jezebel2011]

They have just - in January - altered one of the questions on the Temple Recommend interview.

The Stake President had just got his letter from the First Presidency that day and shared the information.

The question is not for first time Recommend holders, though, it is for subsequent

.

[RMGuy]

They have just - in January - altered one of the questions on the Temple Recommend interview.

The Stake President had just got his letter from the First Presidency that day and shared the information.

The question is not for first time Recommend holders, though, it is for subsequent

.

Must. Restrain. From. Comment.

Whew...that was tough.

-RM

[laffopuritain]

They have just - in January - altered one of the questions on the Temple Recommend interview.

The Stake President had just got his letter from the First Presidency that day and shared the information.

The question is not for first time Recommend holders, though, it is for subsequent

.

"In 2012, the question about wearing the garments was slightly modified to clarify that the garments should not be worn separately."

Temple (LDS Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jezebel2011]

"In 2012, the question about wearing the garments was slightly modified to clarify that the garments should not be worn separately."

Temple (LDS Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question was not that!

The piece quoted says -

"added a clause about wearing them as instructed in the temple"

The question is not quite that, it is about wearing the garments without modifying the way that you wear them, ie, not tucking the cap sleeves under sleeveless dresses, etc

.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Jezebel2011

[Jezebel2011]

"In 2012, the question about wearing the garments was slightly modified to clarify that the garments should not be worn separately."

Temple (LDS Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question was not that!

"added a clause about wearing them as instructed in the temple"

.

[Jezebel2011]

Must. Restrain. From. Comment.

Whew...that was tough.

-RM

At least I answered the OP's question instead of being idiotic!!

[laffopuritain]

The question was not that!

The piece quoted says -

"added a clause about wearing them as instructed in the temple"

The question is not quite that, it is about wearing the garments without modifying the way that you wear them, ie, not tucking the cap sleeves under sleeveless dresses, etc

.

here's a link to the letter you're referring to.

http://mormonstories.org/other/TRI%20Questions%20120911.pdf

"It is expected that members will wear the garment

both night and day according to covenants

made in the temple. Members should not adjust

the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in

order to accommodate different styles of clothing,

even when such clothing may be generally accepted.

The garment should not be removed, either

entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for

other activities that can reasonably be done with

the garment worn properly beneath the clothing."

It mentions both.

[RMGuy]

From the post above ""It is expected that members will wear the garment

both night and day according to covenants

made in the temple."

When did we "covenant" to do this? Now, I'm just a poor dumb country boy, but I seem to remember this as part of the instructions and not a covenant. I don't ever remember promising/covenanting to do this.

-RM

[bytor2112]

"It is expected that members will wear the garment

both night and day according to covenants

made in the temple. Members should not adjust

the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in

order to accommodate different styles of clothing,

even when such clothing may be generally accepted.

The garment should not be removed, either

entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for

other activities that can reasonably be done with

the garment worn properly beneath the clothing."

Seems a tad controlling......i live in Florida, monstrously hot and humid. i will work outside without a shirt if I choose and I choose because the Lord blessed me with common sense and common sense suggests that I not have a heat stroke.

[Just_A_Guy]

From the post above ""It is expected that members will wear the garment

both night and day according to covenants

made in the temple."

When did we "covenant" to do this? Now, I'm just a poor dumb country boy, but I seem to remember this as part of the instructions and not a covenant. I don't ever remember promising/covenanting to do this.

-RM

I think most of us would acknowledge that when a person is baptized they are making a covenant, even though they don't say anything (not even a simple "yes" or "I will") as they make that covenant.

Similarly, one might make a case that the initiatory--and the instructions pertaining to it--constitute a covenant regardless of whether the recipient actually vocalizes that covenant during the ordinance.