- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here is a great blog post that has a short history of the temple endowment and garmentsHere is some of the highlights
Quote:1927, Feb 15: “At request of President Grant we have already adopted some of the changes decided upon, and it will be in order for you to do the same. In sealing for the dead, whether one or both be dead, omit the kissing. Omit from the prayer in the circle all references to avenging the blood of the Prophets. Omit from the ordinance and lecture all reference to retribution….This letter is written with the approval of the Presidency.” (George F. Richards to the President of the St. George Temple.)
Too bad they removed the kissing. It would have livened up the sealing we did at the MTC with the sister missionaries!Quote:1962, Apr: “Effective since March 7, 1962, the daily schedule of the endowment sessions in the Salt Lake Temple has been reduced to five each day Monday through Friday….Furthermore, sisters will be permitted to perform not more than one endowment each day.” (“Special Salt Lake Temple Notice,” Messenger)
Sister can only do one session a day!
Quote:1966, July 6: 1st presidency letter states that although civilly married couples normally have to wait one year for a sealing, this is usually waved for those whose parents are non-members so that parents can see the wedding. (1st Presidency letter)
A kinder, gentler First Presidency, placing family first!Quote:
1966, July 6: 1st presidency letter states that although civilly married couples normally have to wait one year for a sealing, this is usually waved for those whose parents are non-members so that parents can see the wedding. (1st Presidency letter)A kinder, gentler First Presidency, placing family first!
That’s a new one to me. Thanks for sharing!
I like the last one a lot. As someone who was disadvantaged by the existing policy. I have to admit, when men get the power to make rules, they go all out, don’t they?
Quote:1966, July 6: 1st presidency letter states that although civilly married couples normally have to wait one year for a sealing, this is usually waved for those whose parents are non-members so that parents can see the wedding. (1st Presidency letter)
Wish that policy still existed. Maybe it’ll come back.
Quote:President Taylor prayed to the Lord that they might be permitted to use the knitted garment and they could all be of the same pattern. They might vary a little, but the garments were all similar and when they made these garments, many people questioned the change from the cloth garment to the knitted garment. It was because the living authority said we might….
This depresses me for two reasons. First, why was the prophet praying to the God of the universe to see if it was ok to wear a knitted garment? It seems really ridiculous to me at the moment.
Second, I’m reminded that often rules, rituals and culture trump God’s love and grace.
😥 Sheldon wrote:Quote:1962, Apr: “Effective since March 7, 1962, the daily schedule of the endowment sessions in the Salt Lake Temple has been reduced to five each day Monday through Friday….Furthermore, sisters will be permitted to perform not more than one endowment each day.” (“Special Salt Lake Temple Notice,” Messenger)
Sister can only do one session a day!
On the surface it sounds bad but they could have had a problem where a lot of women where showing up to do endowment sessions and there wasn’t enough seating capacity for women to do multiple sessions. A woman doing multiple sessions could have been taking the seat of a sister that hadn’t had an opportunity to go through a session yet that day. If relatively few men showed up they may have needed them to do multiple sessions to keep the sessions full.
Speculation, but possible.
Sheldon wrote:Too bad they removed the kissing. It would have livened up the sealing we did at the MTC with the sister missionaries!
Ha. When I was a missionary we couldn’t do sealings in the temple. Period. They didn’t want to give the missionaries any ideas.
😆 nibbler wrote:Sheldon wrote:Quote:1962, Apr: “Effective since March 7, 1962, the daily schedule of the endowment sessions in the Salt Lake Temple has been reduced to five each day Monday through Friday….Furthermore, sisters will be permitted to perform not more than one endowment each day.” (“Special Salt Lake Temple Notice,” Messenger)
Sister can only do one session a day!
On the surface it sounds bad but they could have had a problem where a lot of women where showing up to do endowment sessions and there wasn’t enough seating capacity for women to do multiple sessions. A woman doing multiple sessions could have been taking the seat of a sister that hadn’t had an opportunity to go through a session yet that day. If relatively few men showed up they may have needed them to do multiple sessions to keep the sessions full.
Yes, in a n earlier quote they had problem with many more sisters than brothers. This led to asking for unemployed or retired brothers to be sent to the temple and the temple president was authorized to pay this brother $0.90 for each endowment performed.
I copied down a few of my favorite quotes.
Quote:1923: Thus the Kingdom of God rolls on and the living authorit[ies] are the ones who can make changes in the revealed work of the Lord to answer the purposes of the day in which they live. (Zina Y. Card, “Garments”, Temple Instructions)
1924, June 19: St. George temple president David H. Cannon says that he responded to Elder Richards’ request to implement the temple changes by saying, “Pres. Young had 20 men revise the ceremonies of the ordinances. Pres Young said ‘we are going to give endowments for the dead for the first time and we want to give you the ceremonies as they were given by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple.’ These endowments were received from the Lord by the Prophet Jos Smith in the Nauvoo Temple…” Prest Cannon referred to the President’s book which contained all the ceremonies of the Temple ordinances…which we have been using since this Temple opened 47 years ago, and when we came to talk to President Richards, he said that was wrong….President Cannon stated that President Richards…said ‘you must either conform to our method or we to yours.’ Said Prest Richards told him that the Presidency of the Church and the twelve Apostles were the presiding authorities of in [sic] the Church at present, and they must stand at the head and be responsible for the direction of the affairs of the Church, and the parts in the ordinances of the Temples must be rendered as they have directed. Said Prest Richards instructed him to gather up all the old rulings and instructions and burn them up…” (St George Temple Presidency Meeting Minutes)
1982, Jan 16: “As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering.” (W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section)
Ok so these three basically say that it is ok for the presiding church authority to make changes. I am certainly glad that some of these changes have been made and would hope for more changes in the future. It would be wrong of me to complain about changes as though God should have provided something that would never require modification (even by Himself).
Quote:1934: “The temple ordinances were revealed as many other things have been revealed to the Prophet….There have been no changes in the garment. Fundamentally it is like it was in the beginning. Lenthening or shortening of the sleeve is not a change really. It is just a minor thing, in line with our needs, especially in the summer time; but that does not make any difference to the garment itself. It is a covering for my body, representing covenenats I have made. We make entirely too much of the so-called changes. There have been no changes to the ideas.” (John A. Widstoe, “Answers to Seminary Teachers’ Questions,” 1934 pp 32, 33)
1938, Jul 20: “….The so-called should strap [garments] are not allowable.” (First Presidency Letter)
1955, Nov 4: “SPECIFICATION OF APPROVED GARMENTS: 1. The material used shall be white and of such texture as to constitute a “covering” of the body. (Transparent nets and similar materials not permitted.) 2. The pattern shall in general conform to that of the ceremonial garment used in the temple with the following express modifications thereof permitted; but none others: The legs of the garment may be shortened from ankle length to a length extending merely below the knee. The sleeves may be shortened from wrist length to [short-sleeved]. Collars, as provided for the ceremonial garment, may be eliminated. Buttons and other acceptable fasteners may be substituted for strings. The crotch may be closed. Side-leg or shoulder openings may be provided instead of front and back openings or any combination of these openings is permissible. 3.
The so-called sleeveless and shoulder strap patterns are now allowable.4. It is permissible to use a wide leg, provided it conforms in all other particulars to specifications, and provided it is not designated as a sleeping garment.” (First presidency letter to European mission presidents) So what happened to the shoulder strap pattern. If it was approved – did it subsequently get disapproved? Or did the church just quietly stop making them? Could a woman today cut out her cap sleeves and have this be according to an approved pattern?
Quote:1960, Feb 1: “One letter I dictated was to a woman in answer to her question about the wearing of the garments while sun bathing. I said to her: ‘The wearing of the garment is a personal responsibility, and conditions that justify temporary removal should be determined by each person.'” (David O McKay diary)
Great response!
Quote:1965, Jan 1: New names are standardized: any patron of a given gender receiving a new name in any temple on a given day will receive the same name as all other members of that gender. Prior to this the new name was individual. This is done to facilitate record keeping. (Development of LDS Temple Worship, p 389)
I don’t really understand the new name thing. Is it a “restoration” of our pre-mortal name? Is it a new name like the one given to abraham? If so why is it secret (even from our wife)?
Quote:1966, Aug 30: 1st Presidency announces to stake presidents and missions that those who work at casinos are not to have administrative callings or temple recommends.
I personally liked this one as I have spent my entire career in the casino industry. Growing up in Las Vegas there were quite a number of members employed in some capacity by the casino industry. I have never had this keep me from a TR.
Quote:1982, Jan 5: “Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices….The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.” (First Presidency letter)
1982, Oct 15: “Under date of January 5, 1982, we addressed a letter to you which outlined procedures to be followed in conducting worthiness interviews. Since then, we have received a number of letters from members of the Church which indicate clearly that some local leaders have been delving into private, sensitive matters beyond the scope of what is appropriate. In conducting worthiness interviews, you…should never inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between a man and his wife. You should never deviate from or go beyond the specific questions contained in the temple recommend book…” (First presidency letter)
This is kinda funny. It appears that in January the FP directed that persons who engage in OS in marriage should not enter the temple. Bishops and SP’s felt that as Judges in Isreal and gatekeepers of the temple – it woul be their duty to ferrett out such individuals. Then complaints roll in about invasive questions during the TR process. 10 months after the initial direction the FP issues follow up direction to stop asking these questions. No word on if OS in marriage continues to make individuals unworthy for temple attendance. Have we merely adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?
Quote:1939, Mar 13: “As you are aware, a few years ago the Temple Covenant of chastity was modified so as to permit faithful, worthy women of the Church whose husbands have not received the Endowment to go to the Temple for their own endowments and not be violating their covenant by living with their husbands thereafter, to whom they have not been given of the Lord in the authority of the Holy Priesthood. Young unmarried women are also affected by the foregoing named action, so, if they marry outside the Temple after receiving their endowment they will not be violating their covenants.” (George F. Richards letter to Heber J. Grant)
This is also interesting. It seems that before this time the Temple Covenant of chastity specified that a woman was under covenant to only have marital relations with the man “to whom they have been…given of the Lord in the authority of the Holy Priesthood.” It does not appear that this was ever an issue for endowed men married to non-endowed women. This puts into additional context the language currently in use in the sealing about the wife “giving” herself and the husband “receiving” but not giving of himself. This appears to have confined the woman sexually in ways that didn’t fully apply to men. Was that something that is doctinal about how men & women are different in the eternities? Was that earthly sexism that God will eventually completely expunge from the temple ceremony? For me it applies back to polygamy and kingdom building. A man can receive many women and be their priesthood head but can give/submit himself fully to none. The man will always preside over the women – never any woman over any man.
This also would be problematic for those several women that were sealed to JS but then continued to live with their earthly husbands. Perhaps this is why some speculate that all other marital relations were cut off after the sealing to JS took place.
Quote:I don’t really understand the new name thing.
It is completely symbolic of rebirth and “becoming a new creature in Christ” and has a LONG history in Judeo-Christian tradition.
My take-away is simple:
The temple is symbolic and subject to change in almost any way. It is neither canonical nor creedal. I love it, but I’m not married to any aspect of it as eternal and immutable – except the principle of eternal progression toward godhood.
“1940: Rooms with altars at which individuals could pray privately repurposed.” I guess they removed the thing that would have benefited me the most.
Shawn wrote:“1940: Rooms with altars at which individuals could pray privately repurposed.”
I guess they removed the thing that would have benefited me the most.
Especially as there is little silence in the Celestial Room sometimes
But in the end it’s about numbers
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.