- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the church has again changed the temple ceremony. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/09/lds-temple-ceremonies-change/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/09/lds-temple-ceremonies-change/ Quote:For at least the second time in four years, religious rituals performed in Latter-day Saint temples have undergone significant changes, placing an enhanced emphasis on Jesus Christ, boosting gender equity and providing more explanations of the promises participants make to God.
I’m all for more Jesus in the temple. I was first endowed in 1983 (the penalties were still part of the ritual then, as was the depiction of the presumably Protestant minister playing into Satan’s hand – much has changed). I remember when I first heard that the purpose of the temple was to bring us closer to Jesus Christ and His atonement, and I remember thinking “Is Jesus even mentioned there other than as creator?” (He was, but you had to pay attention.) Anyway, according to the article the change has more mentions of Jesus.
Quote:The new endowment includes more frequent references to Jesus Christ, more egalitarian language regarding the relationship between husbands and wives, and stresses love — for God and for others — as the motivating force behind the covenants.
I’m also good with the idea of the motivation of the covenants being love/caring for others and of course changing the emphasis on wifely subservience (previous changes had helped with this also).
Quote:Attendees receive an explanation, for instance, of the vows, or covenants, they will be making earlier in the ceremony, allowing for greater informed consent among those engaging in the ritual for the first time.
Again, a good change, and I haven’t been (and probably won’t be any time soon), but one of my concerns previously was that who is actually going to stand up and say “Let me out of here!” when it is offered at that point. Even though the explanation and opportunity appear to be earlier in the revision, I’m guessing it still won’t be an easy thing to do – I don’t think it matters when it’s offered once the thing has already started. Maybe an explanation prior to the ceremony (maybe even at the recommend interview level) might be better, although I fully understand with other factors in play it won’t be easy for most people to refuse then either.I like the idea of discussing the temple covenants during the interview process that essentially gives a person permission to do their endowment. Isn’t that the purpose of that interview, to ensure someone is prepared to attend. They could also discuss the covenants during the temple prep class but I have yet to have seen a temple prep class that actually prepares someone for what they’ll encounter in the temple. DarkJedi wrote:
Even though the explanation and opportunity appear to be earlier in the revision, I’m guessing it still won’t be an easy thing to do – I don’t think it matters when it’s offered once the thing has already started.
I don’t see it as making that much of a difference. By the beginning of the endowment session you’ve already done the initiatory and you’ve already changed into the garment. Who is going to back out at that stage? I’ve also read accounts of people that felt pressure to go along with whatever because they felt like their marriage was on the line. There’s a lot of pressure once you pass the threshold of the temple. I’m all for reminding people that they can back out at any time but moving that opportunity up by a few minutes doesn’t do much from the informed consent angle.
I hear some of the modernization of language used in the temple was also applied to at least one covenant that people make. I’m hearing the, “I made covenant ABC when I went through the temple but now people make covenant XYZ. Which covenant am I held to?” questioning starting back up.
nibbler wrote:
I hear some of the modernization of language used in the temple was also applied to at least one covenant that people make. I’m hearing the, “I made covenant ABC when I went through the temple but now people make covenant XYZ. Which covenant am I held to?” questioning starting back up.
That thought had actually crossed my mind multiples times over the years.
I’m at an intersectionality where I am really evaluating my “obligations” – and the “traditional” non-LDS marriage vows have 1 set of obligations (which technically I never made), and the temple sealing vows (which are kinda defunct for me because it’s hard to know if someone else is “harkening” to Godly counsel if you aren’t sure that God exists – let alone has any words of counsel for you or anyone else) which I don’t know the level of obligation I am technically under.
To me, the more pertinent question is “what are my values-based obligations” in the situation.“Love” and “Honor” may equal “be a co-housecleaner, co-chauffer, co-parent” in all the nitty-gritty details of household life. “Honoring” my husband actually includes stepping back from a lot of household stuff so he gets an opportunity to shine instead of taking it on myself as the default.
SIDE STORY:
And I had a clear conversation with my husband before we were sealed that if he actually thought I was going to “completely obey” him– that wasneverhappening and both my husband-to-be and God should know that upfront. “Obey” was being translated by me into an agreement to “hear out thoughtfully” – and what I was saying/doing as part of the ritual was for show only – I was only putting myself under obligation to “hear out thoughtfully”.
My poor husband did not see that conversation coming his direction until it more or less barreled him over – but he gave the appropriate answers to me at the time, so we got sealed in the temple.
I am happy with the direction of the changes. I am also happy that the church is open to even making changes at all. Remember how reluctant the church leadership was to change the “priesthood restriction” against members of African descent. They felt that it would take a “thus sayeth the Lord” revelation. I am happy that the church is more comfortable making changes based on “inspiration” and not waiting for the burning bush moments to address things that are simply less and less helpful to the modern church.
I will cheer the loudest when husbands and wives can share their new name with each other. We have removed so many gender-dividing things in the temple already, what’s the hold up for that one?
QuestionAbound wrote:
I will cheer the loudest when husbands and wives can share their new name with each other.We have removed so many gender-dividing things in the temple already, what’s the hold up for that one?
I have heard that the purpose of the husband knowing the “new name” of the wife is that it is to be used in the resurrection ceremony that the husband uses to call his wife out of the grave in the millennium. The sourcing for that tradition is nebulous and could easily change. How long has it been since we taught that husbands will resurrect their wives?
In an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Jana Riess has shed some more light on the most recent changes. It sounds like it’s more – and probably better – that I thought. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/13/jana-riess-more-jesus-less/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/13/jana-riess-more-jesus-less/ Quote:The ceremony now opens with a list of the five covenants that individuals will be making in the temple during the ceremony.
Again, I think this is still too late – that 18-year-old isn’t going to get up and walk out with Mommy and Daddy (and probably many others he knows) sitting there.
Quote:All of my interviewees noted that the images on screen now include multiple depictions of Jesus, some of which they had never seen before…. The revised endowment seeks to explicitly link Christ as the reason why individuals make and keep covenants…. n addition to the images of Christ, there are more spoken references to him, including at the beginning, when an announcement makes it clear that the recent changes in the temple liturgy are in alignment with the church’s doctrine of Jesus Christ.
I’m all for more Jesus and more connection to the ceremony (as I said, something that I thought was lacking before). I think there needs to be more emphasis on Jesus as Savior as opposed to Jesus as Creator – the rest of Christianity sees that role differently than we do and I’m not so sure we’re the ones who are right.
Quote:The revised endowment includes, for what I believe is the first time, a ritual performance of what Latter-day Saints call the War in Heaven.
Yep, I don’t recall that before either. The jury is out for me on it though – maybe when I eventually see/hear it in context I’ll be more favorable, but I’m preliminarily less than enthused. Maybe this does tie more into Jesus as Savior, but again the rest of Christianity doesn’t teach this the same as we do and again I’m not sure we’re right and they’re all wrong.
Quote:Measures that were introduced during COVID-19 to reduce touching seem to have been made permanent. There is no hand-to-hand touching until the end, when individuals pass through the veil.
But that’s not the only simplification. There is less movement as a whole. Whereas in the past, patrons were asked to stand up and sit down at various points in the ceremony, and to adjust pieces of their ceremonial clothing, now the endowment is more streamlined, and participants are seated for most of it.
The standing from time to time did help me stay awake. I can see how it was sometime challenging for some older participants though. Sitting the entire time doesn’t thrill me, although I manage in movie theaters (but there is popcorn there, and I haven’t been to a theater since pre-COVID).
Quote:No witness couple.
OK. Apparently the witness couple role is all taken care of on screen. The officiant’s role is also apparently reduced to pushing the button to start the program and saying the prayer at the end.
Quote:The conclusion of the creation story is no longer the end for Adam and Eve as major actors in the ceremony. They now appear on screen after the creation story has finished. They appear in an indoor setting that one person described to me as a temple altar but another said was “nondescript.” They are wearing temple clothing and receiving the tokens from the biblical Peter, who is also a character on the screen rather than being represented by a live officiant as in the past.
OK. Riess also says the tokens are given directly to Eve as well as Adam.:thumbup:
Quote:Multiple reminders that this is symbolic.
Another thumbs up.:thumbup: I know people who seem to take it too literally from the way I understand it. I think it’s good they make it clear it’s symbolic.
Quote:In what may be my favorite change, there’s no longer a warning for temple attendees to guard themselves against loud laughter and light-mindedness.
Whew. I feel more worthy than ever.
Quote:More diverse racial representation.
:thumbup: About time.
Quote:What my interviewees noticed this time was that when God discusses Adam, he also includes Eve (“Adam and Eve and their posterity” was one remembered phrase).
I feel positively about this one.:thumbup:
Quote:More exhortations to obey.
This one gets less positivity. From my point of view, obedience is mostly an invention of the church and not something as overtly espoused by Jesus.
Quote:Small changes to the creation narrative.
Encouragements to come back to the temple.
These both get a “meh” from me.
Quote:Still the same length.
Dang!DarkJedi wrote:
Quote:The ceremony now opens with a list of the five covenants that individuals will be making in the temple during the ceremony.
Again, I think this is still too late – that 18-year-old isn’t going to get up and walk out with Mommy and Daddy (and probably many others he knows) sitting there.And after they’ve already done the initiatory ordinance. They’re already partway in at that stage.
Side note: Does anyone know how things play out when a person does an initiatory but doesn’t go through with the endowment? I know a long gap between the initiatory and the endowment happens all the time for proxy work, in those cases the deceased just wait on the endowment ordinance to be done for them but what happens for the living?
I think with baptism and the gift of the HG that if a person is baptized and doesn’t show for the GotHG that after some period of time they’d have to be baptized again before receiving the GotHG. A person doesn’t become a member of the church until both ordinances have been completed and recorded. So I wonder if it’s similar for initiatories and the endowment. If a living person nopes out of an endowment session, is the endowment then incomplete and the initiatory didn’t count so it would have to be done again?
DarkJedi wrote:
Yep, I don’t recall that before either. The jury is out for me on it though – maybe when I eventually see/hear it in context I’ll be more favorable, but I’m preliminarily less than enthused.Agreed. Hard to tell without experiencing it firsthand but I’m kind of done with the war motifs.
Reduced instances of standing was in a prior change. Maybe they reduced it further?
DarkJedi wrote:
Another thumbs up. I know people who seem to take it too literally from the way I understand it. I think it’s good they make it clear it’s symbolic.
They probably took it literal because that’s how they were taught that they were supposed to take things. I know I did/was.
DarkJedi wrote:
Quote:Still the same length.
Dang!I heard it was about 10-15 minutes longer. Backing up a bit… some time ago they made changes where you didn’t stand up and sit down near as often as you once did, you only had to put the temple robes on once instead of twice, and they removed some of the repetition of receiving instructions, repeating instructions, delegating instructions, repeating instructions, reporting up the chain, reporting up the chain, rinse and repeat several times.
Those changes ended up saving a lot of time. When I hear the ordinance is now longer I’m assuming it’s close to the length it was before they made those time saving changes.
Perhaps the subject of a different thread but I’m kinda done with the endowment. I still enjoy going to the temple to help out with baptisms but I don’t picture myself doing another endowment session ever again. There aren’t any changes that could be made to the endowment that’s going to move that needle. I don’t find value in the endowment. I know that puts me in the minority of active membership but if we’re going to make the temple the centerpiece of our worship, I’d prefer that the temple experience include more than just an ordinance assembly line.
And dare I say that with all the focus placed on temples (I also imagine that temple operations/building is where the majority of the money is spent) that temples have become an idol in the culture. It’s good that they’re bringing Jesus to the temple but we could stand to bring a little more Jesus to the problems living people face each and every day.
nibbler wrote:
Perhaps the subject of a different thread but I’m kinda done with the endowment. I still enjoy going to the temple to help out with baptisms but I don’t picture myself doing another endowment session ever again. There aren’t any changes that could be made to the endowment that’s going to move that needle. I don’t find value in the endowment.I know that puts me in the minority of active membership but if we’re going to make the temple the centerpiece of our worship, I’d prefer that the temple experience include more than just an ordinance assembly line.
And dare I say that with all the focus placed on temples (I also imagine that temple operations/building is where the majority of the money is spent) that temples have become an idol in the culture. It’s good that they’re bringing Jesus to the temple but we could stand to bring a little more Jesus to the problems living people face each and every day.
I agree. The endowment doesn’t do much for me and hasn’t in a long time. These changes don’t seem like they will affect that point of view. I do feel as though under the Nelson administration temples (and temple worship) have become more of an emphasis and I don’t think that’s the answer to our problems (macro or micro). As the father (and father-in-law) of young adult children who are at best semi-active, they’ and their friends/member peers don’t seem be buying into the temple. I suppose from the crystal palace in SLC it might appear that members who go to the temple remain active. But that might not be the cause/effect – active people (those who buy the narrative) go to the temple, inactive/less active people don’t. I’m not sure there’s a correlation that the temple keeps people active (or solves anybody’s problems).
One of my children served a mission in Vanuatu, where they are now building a temple. Vanuatu is a South Pacific nation (part of Micronesia) composed of many small islands, only some of which are inhabited. Historically, there was a WWII air base there in what is now the “city” of Port Vila, population 44,000 (roughly 20% of the population). There are no supermarkets or department stores there. Outside the city (and to some extent within in residential areas) the population, mostly native, are subsistence farmers growing most of what they eat as families in their own small gardens. Most outside the city do not have electricity. Children are mostly shoeless and often naked, and the homes are literally huts (as are church meeting houses). Almost everyone has eaten dog, and there was historical cannibalism (really, really). I think the million(s) dollars spent on that temple could go to better use improving the lives of those people.
I really like the new version – and my wife absolutely loves the changes. It would be a bit difficult to make it more male/female equal. Of note, there is no reference at all to Eve being given to Adam OR being commanded to stay with him. I also appreciate what was added to the previous version and removed from the new one – that lasted only a very short time.
Bump: Quote:All told, roughly 15 minutes have been cut, bringing the experience closer to an hour flat.
:thumbup: I’m not sure which is more preferable, the constant tinkering or if they did a one-time overhaul once they finally figured out what they wanted the final product to be.
I do like agile adapting rather than the older model of resisting change to the point where you wondered whether anything would ever change. That said, changing the endowment every 18-24 months makes it feel so malleable that the ceremony feels less special.
As stated earlier, all of the recent tinkering makes the policing of every minute detail in years past feel like a complete waste and by extension it makes any current policing of every particular feel equally pointless. Don’t wear the clothing correctly? Flub a word at the veil? No worries, in another two years time those parts of the ceremony will probably be removed. Can we fast forward to that day and dispense with all temple practice policing?
The part I like in this link is: Quote:About 17 months ago, the church rolled out other revisions to the ceremony,
placing a greater emphasis on Jesus Christ,further boosting gender equity and providing more explanations of the promises participants make to God. I’m for anything that bring more emphasis on Jesus Christ.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.