Quick Temple Question

[yoyoteacher]

My husband and I are visiting my in laws in Bismarck and went to the temple on Saturday. While there we saw a posted sign that said under guidance from the first presidency, white clothing is to be worn during initiatory work. I haven't done this ordinance since November but was curious if this was an around the world decision or one that happened in Bismarck because it is such a small temple and likely doesn't provide rental and have a large need for laundry as a result. 

 

Thanks everyone! 

[LeSellers]

It's general, as far as I can tell.

Lehi

[Guest]

7 hours ago, yoyoteacher said:

My husband and I are visiting my in laws in Bismarck and went to the temple on Saturday. While there we saw a posted sign that said under guidance from the first presidency, white clothing is to be worn during initiatory work. I haven't done this ordinance since November but was curious if this was an around the world decision or one that happened in Bismarck because it is such a small temple and likely doesn't provide rental and have a large need for laundry as a result. 

 

Thanks everyone! 

As opposed to what?  The temple workers' "uniform" is white clothing.  And the patron is in a jumpsuit provided by the temple.  What else would we be wearing?

[Jane_Doe]

7 hours ago, yoyoteacher said:

My husband and I are visiting my in laws in Bismarck and went to the temple on Saturday. While there we saw a posted sign that said under guidance from the first presidency, white clothing is to be worn during initiatory work. I haven't done this ordinance since November but was curious if this was an around the world decision or one that happened in Bismarck because it is such a small temple and likely doesn't provide rental and have a large need for laundry as a result. 

 

Thanks everyone! 

Do you remember before, when you did the initiatory, you ditched your temple dress in favor of just the shield?  Now you don't: you just go and wear your normal temple dress.

The policy change is world wide, and really new (<1 month old).   

[yoyoteacher]

Thank you, Jane Doe. @Carborendum I was referring to the shield but didn't know how much I was allowed to divulge. Temple things, you know. Any time I've gone it's been the shield so I just didn't know when the change had been made. 

 

[mordorbund]

What an exciting change! The pot-stirrer in me sees more on the way 

On 5/17/2014 at 10:26 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

With regard to the initiatory ordinances, I think the Lord makes an exception to the paradigm outlined above for the reasons TFP suggests vis a vis the initiatory ordinances--although, with the 2006-ish changes to the ritual, I think it would be highly amusing to see the Church leadership decide that the reasons for allowing women to officiate in those rituals for other women are no longer valid and instruct that henceforth only (male) priesthood holders may officiate in that ritual as well.  There's certainly precedent--IIRC, women giving (non-priesthood) blessings by laying-on-of-hands was fairly common up until the 1940s at which time the First Presidency decided that that function rightly pertained to the priesthood, and the Relief Society was instructed to stop doing it.

[yoyoteacher]

19 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

What an exciting change! The pot-stirrer in me sees more on the way 

 

 

I think the initiatory is my favorite ordinance right now, because it shows the possibilities promised to us in the eternities. With the area for the ordinance being in the middle of the locker room, I really can't see the process being changed. 

[mordorbund]

3 minutes ago, yoyoteacher said:

I think the initiatory is my favorite ordinance right now, because it shows the possibilities promised to us in the eternities. With the area for the ordinance being in the middle of the locker room, I really can't see the process being changed. 

Rooms can be moved. 

[yoyoteacher]

With a large chunk of temples being tiny ones like Bismarck, that don't even have a chapel, I'm curious as to where they would move things. Not saying it wouldn't happen but when you are already maximizing space, it seems like a lot of effort to go to. Honestly, I think women performing the initiatory is my biggest 'duh'  moment to the ordain women movement. We are promised to become priestesses unto our husbands if we are faithful....the initiatory is evidence of that in my opinion. 

[zil]

Is everyone forgetting that women already officiate in the endowment?  If they were gonna replace women officiators with men, it seems that would be the first one to go, and could have gone at any time.  No pot to stir here.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, yoyoteacher said:

Thank you, Jane Doe. @Carborendum I was referring to the shield but didn't know how much I was allowed to divulge. Temple things, you know. Any time I've gone it's been the shield so I just didn't know when the change had been made. 

 

It must have been a VERY long time since you went if that's what you're talking about. That change occurred in 2005.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

you just go and wear your normal temple dress

That is a great change. 

Several months ago on a retreat with girlfriends, we took some of my family names to the temple. They needed both initiatory and endowment work. It was a mad rush to change, do initiatories, change again, and make it to the endowment session. We did it, but it would have been much easier if we could have just worn our dresses. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

you just go and wear your normal temple dress

That is a great change. 

Several months ago on a retreat with girlfriends, we took some of my family names to the temple. They needed both initiatory and endowment work. It was a mad rush to change, do initiatories, change again, and make it to the endowment session. We did it, but it would have been much easier if we could have just worn our dresses. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Do you remember before, when you did the initiatory, you ditched your temple dress in favor of just the shield?  Now you don't: you just go and wear your normal temple dress.

The policy change is world wide, and really new (<1 month old).   

Oh.  I get it.  Yeah.  That is pretty new.  Ok.  Is it the same for men?  (you know, pants and shirt, not a dress.)

[Jane_Doe]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Oh.  I get it.  Yeah.  That is pretty new.  Ok.  Is it the same for men?  (you know, pants and shirt, not a dress.)

Now that you would have to ask a man about

I went my initiatory last week, and my sister was explaining the procedure to me (she last did initiatory's the end of June), and she was out of date!

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Now that you would have to ask a man about

I went my initiatory last week, and my sister was explaining the procedure to me (she last did initiatory's the end of June), and she was out of date!

For all we know, it may not be true for men because a shield is essentially a dress.  So, this is why cross-dressing isn't part of the temple recommend questions...

Edited July 26, 2016 by Guest

[yoyoteacher]

3 hours ago, zil said:

Is everyone forgetting that women already officiate in the endowment?  If they were gonna replace women officiators with men, it seems that would be the first one to go, and could have gone at any time.  No pot to stir here.

My husband made this same point in the car while in the middle of our drive back to Missouri. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

That is a great change. 

Several months ago on a retreat with girlfriends, we took some of my family names to the temple. They needed both initiatory and endowment work. It was a mad rush to change, do initiatories, change again, and make it to the endowment session. We did it, but it would have been much easier if we could have just worn our dresses. 

I agree with you on modesty/expediency grounds; but I think there must have been a symbolic power in the initiatory ordinances as originally implemented (getting into a tub and being, quite literally, washed) that we don't quite get today.

Given today's sexualized society, the evolution in the way the ordinance is performed was almost certainly necessary; but I still think it's a little unfortunate.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

getting into a tub and being, quite literally, washed

I guess I'm a youngster because I didn't know they ever did that. 

I've been endowed about... 18 years I guess. It was different than now, but no bathing of any kind happened. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I guess I'm a youngster because I didn't know they ever did that. 

I've been endowed about... 18 years I guess. It was different than now, but no bathing of any kind happened. 

Yeah, it hasn't been that way in a *very* long time.  But the Salt Lake Temple, as built, included (I think) six or twelve wash tubs for use in ritual work--contemporary architectural journals noted their installation.

[Budget]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But the Salt Lake Temple, as built, included (I think) six or twelve wash tubs for use in ritual work--contemporary architectural journals noted their installation.

I have read it was 10 tubs... but you know how information gets changed through the years. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The policy change is world wide, and really new (<1 month old).   

Many saw signs posted the week of May 17th (this year) saying effective immediately, white clothing is to be worn for initiatory ordinance. Shields are discontinued.

This was discussed a lot on "LDS mommy forums" and all over Reddit the last part of May, early June.