Ignoring the Pandemic is Our Charter? (Bednar)

[Anonymous]

I’ve head that about spirit prison as well but now it seems kinda ridiculous. Can you imagine a spirit accepting the gospel and being forced to stay in a prison until an ordinance takes place?

Maybe it’s an outcropping of belief in a literal spirit prison instead of a metaphorical prison, where the metaphorical prison is the anxiety over not having the ordinance secured. Even that doesn’t make much sense to me these days, but it’s a possible explanation.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I’ve head that about spirit prison as well but now it seems kinda ridiculous. Can you imagine a spirit accepting the gospel and being forced to stay in a prison until an ordinance takes place?

Maybe it’s an outcropping of belief in a literal spirit prison instead of a metaphorical prison, where the metaphorical prison is the anxiety over not having the ordinance secured. Even that doesn’t make much sense to me these days, but it’s a possible explanation.

None of it makes sense to me any more wither and that was of course part of my faith crisis. One of the appealing things about the church when I joined was that it hadn’t answers I hadn’t found elsewhere – it made sense. Now I know we don’t have all the answers either. And I guess that’s what bugs me about Elder Bednar. He’s old school and statements like those in these couple of talks/articles just seem to highlight that. I thought we were over not looking at our history.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Quote:

Between 1855 and 1889, the Saints performed more than 54,000 endowments, 68,000 sealings, and 134,000 baptisms for the dead in the Endowment House.

*It should be noted that the endowment house was not the only place temple ordinances were performed and that not all temple ordinances were performed in those places (most proxy ordinances were not done in those places).

Baptisms for the Dead were performed in the Mississippi River before the Nauvoo Temple.

The Endowment was performed in the “upper room” of JS’ Red Brick Store before the Nauvoo Temple.

Sealings were performed in Nauvoo prior to the Nauvoo Temple.

After leaving Nauvoo, at least one (recorded) individual received the Endowment Ordinance atop Ensign Peak.

Before the Endowment House, there was the Council House, where ordinances were performed.

My Gr-Gr-Gr-Grandmother was sealed to her long-dead first husband by BY in BY’s office. Many others likewise received Temple Ordinances in BY’s office.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

Quote:

Between 1855 and 1889, the Saints performed more than 54,000 endowments, 68,000 sealings, and 134,000 baptisms for the dead in the Endowment House.

*It should be noted that the endowment house was not the only place temple ordinances were performed and that not all temple ordinances were performed in those places (most proxy ordinances were not done in those places).

Baptisms for the Dead were performed in the Mississippi River before the Nauvoo Temple.

The Endowment was performed in the “upper room” of JS’ Red Brick Store before the Nauvoo Temple.

Sealings were performed in Nauvoo prior to the Nauvoo Temple.

After leaving Nauvoo, at least one (recorded) individual received the Endowment Ordinance atop Ensign Peak.

Before the Endowment House, there was the Council House, where ordinances were performed.

My Gr-Gr-Gr-Grandmother was sealed to her long-dead first husband by BY in BY’s office. Many others likewise received Temple Ordinances in BY’s office.

Yes, OON, and there are other examples as well. That’s what is bugging me about Bednar’s statement – it’s (probably) not an outright lie (and maybe not meant to be) but it’s not entirely truthful either. Going back to Obi Wan and Luke (and Darth Vader) I think most people believe Obi Wan lied, for much the same reason it appears Bednar is not being entirely truthful – it doesn’t fit the narrative at the moment. I’m an honest person and I expect honesty in others (and particularly from church leaders), and he’s just not being honest. (Interesting side note that it was the “evil” Darth Vader who told Luke the truth and only after confronting Obi Wan did Obi Wan tell the truth.)

[Anonymous]

Is DAB intentionally misleading here, regarding the unavailability of temple ordinances? I’m not sure. It looks like it on the surface. My take is that he’s probably not lying, but rather mischaracterizing reality because of his world-view. He doesn’t see things the same way you or I do, so from his perspective, his statements are true. He probably doesn’t realize that what he is saying is not really accurate. I don’t mean that he is overly-nuancing things to his own advantage, but rather that he’s not capable of the type of analysis that would be necessary to realize that these statements aren’t accurate.

Here’s my take on DAB and DAB-views.

I think DAB overly simplifies the gospel. He’s not the only one, BTW, I hear over-simplification from a lot of religious adherents within general Christianity and Mormonism specifically. An example was from DAB’s Windows of Heaven talk from 2013 in which he

[Anonymous]

I recently heard someone saying that it was so great to finally get back to church because of how important it is to take the sacrament. I was a little confused because I know that this woman’s husband is a priesthood holder and I asked if they have not been able to bless the sacrament on their own. She responded that yes, they have – but it is not quite the same.

I see similarities between what this woman was saying and what Elder Bednar seems to have said. Essentially, that the most important reason for the meeting/building is the ordinance but that the ordinance performed without those customary trappings does not seem to feel as valuable.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

The issue of the lack of “temples” from 1846 to 1877 is a weird one, for sure. I suspect that he thinks of the temple as an all-encompassing thing (“The House of the Lord”). This puts (in his mind) temples beyond BY’s office or the Endowment House, which may have been places to perform ordinances, but were not themselves “temples”. Again, very black & white, here. They weren’t “temples” so the temple switch was off.

That’s how I convince myself that he’s not trying to deceive.

But I also should point out that he clearly stated in GC April 2020 that the purpose of the temples is in the covenants and ordinances. From that GC talk:

Quote:

We do not build or enter holy temples solely to have a memorable individual or family experience. Rather, the covenants received and the ordinances performed in temples are essential to…

Quote:

The most sacred covenants and priesthood ordinances are received only in a temple.

Quote:

Understandably, the announcement of each new temple is a source of great joy and a reason to give thanks to the Lord. However, our primary focus should be on the covenants and ordinances that can change our hearts and deepen our devotion to the Savior and not simply on the location or beauty of the building.

Quote:

We do not come to the temple to hide from or escape the evils of the world [we go there to receive priesthood ordinances and make sacred covenants]

Yeah, and this is what makes his recent statement so confusing. He clearly was referring to the temple itself in this statement, BUT he was alluding to the idea that not being able to go to the temple because there wasn’t a temple meant they weren’t getting the ordinances – but they were (at least endowment and sealings to spouses). I totally agree with him. The important part about the temple is the ordinances – if you believe in them). If you don’t believe in them the temple becomes fairly meaningless, although I do know people who testify of revelations received or the general sense of peace in the temple.

I do believe that Bednar has a simple (and quite literal and black/white) faith. And he is also very obedience based. I know lots of members of the church who are like that. They don’t have the pulpit he has, and that’s generally a good thing from my point of view. It’s also what worries me most about the pulpit he will someday have.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I recently heard someone saying that it was so great to finally get back to church because of how important it is to take the sacrament. I was a little confused because I know that this woman’s husband is a priesthood holder and I asked if they have not been able to bless the sacrament on their own. She responded that yes, they have – but it is not quite the same.

I see similarities between what this woman was saying and what Elder Bednar seems to have said. Essentially, that the most important reason for the meeting/building is the ordinance but that the ordinance performed without those customary trappings does not seem to feel as valuable.

I see what you’re saying here Roy but I disagree with the premise. My priesthood is no different that anyone else’s, and the sacrament I do myself at home is exactly the same as any other sacrament done by any other priest or elder. Likewise, the ordinances for those people who were endowed and sealed in the endowment house are just as valid as those done in any temple at any time. I get what you’re saying that there are people who don’t understand that (and/or maybe harbor old Catholic or Protestant ideas) but they fail to see the spiritual big picture. Pre- and post- mortality do not depend on physical places (nor does God’s love).

[Anonymous]

Agreed!

[Anonymous]

I think leaders down though time would say that temple ordinances being performed outside temples (BY office, endowment houses, Mississippi river, etc.) was only excusable because there were extenuating circumstances.

I don’t know how Bednar thinks, but Bednar may believe that being run out of town by a mob and forced to build a new civilization from scratch makes it excusable but having temples and not being able to use it because the government is restricting religious freedoms (from his perspective) is not, so it comes back to temple availability.

Plus for all we know, after temples were available again some ultra orthodox leader could have considered all the ordinances in the endowment house, etc., etc. null and void and quietly ordered them all redone by proxy because in their mind they had to take place in a temple. No sources for that idea, no reason to believe that’s what happened, but it’s possible.

I’m behind the argument that if done with the proper PH and under the existing rules of the day that the ordinances that took place outside the temple are just as valid as the ones done inside a temple today… but that doesn’t mean all leaders down through time have seen it that way. Redoing things because of the tiniest of deviations from a bylaw to a bylaw to some obscure rule is right up some member’s alley.

To me, Bednar’s larger mischaracterization is that the church is being forced to close by the big, bad government… and that simply is not the case.

[Anonymous]

I can empathize with the sister that doesn’t feel the sacrament is the same in her home.

I got married right when small temples were first being announced. There wasn’t a small temple anywhere close to us at the time we got married but I remember the sentiment, even if a small temple were available we still wanted to get married in a large temple. The ordinance was the same, a temple is a temple, but to us it felt more special in a large temple.

Maybe that had more to do with one particular temple being special to us to begin with but I think I still have that bias. If given the choice, I’d go for the larger temple.

For the sister it may have been more about missing being with others and that got interpreted as the ordinance being less than in her home.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think leaders down though time would say that temple ordinances being performed outside temples (BY office, endowment houses, Mississippi river, etc.) was only excusable because there were extenuating circumstances.

Agreed. Such is the current case with the sacrament at home. Under normal (non-COVID) circumstances we would not be generally authorized to bless the sacrament at home with our own families but would have to come to church to get the sacrament. I’m not sure it was always that way in the early church (especially before church buildings) but it is now. At the same time, I know many in my own area who absolutely love doing it at home with their families – including our SP.

Quote:

To me, Bednar’s larger mischaracterization is that the church is being forced to close by the big, bad government… and that simply is not the case.

Yes, this was more the premise of the OP. In that case Bednar is wearing the religious freedom hat. But I agree, it’s not true. My state has made great accommodations to religion, exempting churches from restrictions placed on businesses, etc. The church itself has placed far greater restrictions on us than the government, including closing temples which the government has not mentioned. And either way, I also have my own agency (and ability to bless the sacrament at home and watch church online) and would not attend a service where there are 200 people singing without masks.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Then I think people became fatigued from putting life on hold, some politics took over, and church leaders became increasingly worried about the future health of the organization. That’s led to today where we’re ignoring official indoor gathering restrictions to hold sacrament meetings and there’s a building pressure to get things back to business as usual… right at the very height of the health crisis. At least in my area, don’t know about others.

We can’t expect them to be open about how the pandemic is affecting the organization if such effect is negative. At least not at the high profile leadership level (prophet, apostles). I would imagine the toll the pandemic is taking on the church is evident in local leadership meetings, however. I know the missionary effort has suffered dramatically. But I can see organizational interests eclipsing the safety of members as time and time again, I have seen the church put the organization ahead of the individual.

[Anonymous]

Yes, unfortunately that appears to be the case.

We recently had stake conference and people were encouraged to attend the leadership and adult sessions in person. Virtual attendance was also offered but presented as the lesser option.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

nibbler wrote:

Then I think people became fatigued from putting life on hold, some politics took over, and church leaders became increasingly worried about the future health of the organization. That’s led to today where we’re ignoring official indoor gathering restrictions to hold sacrament meetings and there’s a building pressure to get things back to business as usual… right at the very height of the health crisis. At least in my area, don’t know about others.

We can’t expect them to be open about how the pandemic is affecting the organization if such effect is negative. At least not at the high profile leadership level (prophet, apostles). I would imagine the toll the pandemic is taking on the church is evident in local leadership meetings, however. I know the missionary effort has suffered dramatically. But I can see organizational interests eclipsing the safety of members as time and time again, I have seen the church put the organization ahead of the individual.

Interesting (inspired?) that the church stopped giving the statistical report in GC a couple years back and if you want it you have to go look for it. I honestly thought it was a waste of time and made the meeting more business-like than it already is anyway, but I did pay attention to the bloggers who track such things. The bloggers still do their thing, but my guess is most people don’t pay attention to number of baptisms, etc., and therefore won’t notice there has been a steep decline (although it should be obvious).

[Author]

Posts