- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d be sad to see it recorded. As someone who has never been moved by the film, and likes it less the “better” it gets, I would hate to lose the real face to face of the initiatory. It’s often the only thing I have a real desire to do because it doesn’t involve getting wet and it’s more aesthetically pleasing than the endowment. That’s even allowing for the subordinating difference in the language for women. My favorite part of the endowment is also active, no recording, face to face – the veil. It’s also the only place besides the baptistry where men and women do the exact same thing. The rest of the endowment is clouded for me by the gender differences and too many elements/actions I don’t comprehend.
If they recorded it, would they keep a woman’s voice? That’s part of what makes it for me.
I doubt highly that the initiatory will be recorded. I don’t see someone laying their hands on someone’s head and hitting a button to play a recording. Even I would have a hard time with that arrangement. I absolutely love the idea of becoming clean from the blood and sins of each generation, for a lot of reasons. I probably interpret that phrase differently than most, and perhaps than originally intended, but I think it emphasizes the power of the Atonement (literally or symbolically) to erase elements of one’s environment (including internal to the Church) that simply can’t be escaped – and that means a lot to me in the context of much of what we discuss here.
I also love the concept of blessing an ancestor through a descendant that the ancestor will have joy in their posterity. That hits me hard occasionally when I know someone is representing an actual ancestor.
There is a richness in the initiatory that resonates deeply with me, even though it is obvious upon reflection that it all is completely symbolic. (blind people being blessed that their eyes may see, impotent people being blessed that they may multiply and replenish the earth, people pushing walkers being blessed that they may run, etc.)
Ann wrote:I’m all for the change. The only thing I liked about the old way was that it really did seem like more of a process and progression. It made me think of the old, old days when people (I gather) really did bathe before ordinances, and also Jewish ritual bathing. Just too weird for us today.
My institute instructor was a proponent of the endowment “penalties”. He showed us parallels in the OT with the covenants that Israel was making with Jehovah back in the day.
This reminds me that there can be symbolic beauty even in things that many would find objectionable. This also reminds me that we can make changes and even develop new symbolic meanings to fit our modern circumstances.
Roy wrote:Ann wrote:I’m all for the change. The only thing I liked about the old way was that it really did seem like more of a process and progression. It made me think of the old, old days when people (I gather) really did bathe before ordinances, and also Jewish ritual bathing. Just too weird for us today.
My institute instructor was a proponent of the endowment “penalties”. He showed us parallels in the OT with the covenants that Israel was making with Jehovah back in the day.
This reminds me that there can be symbolic beauty even in things that many would find objectionable. This also reminds me that we can make changes and even develop new symbolic meanings to fit our modern circumstances.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t miss the penalties. But I also didn’t mind them. They were one of the first things I recognized as symbolic in the temple, and it took me many years to realize it’s all symbolic.
DarkJedi wrote:Roy wrote:Ann wrote:I’m all for the change. The only thing I liked about the old way was that it really did seem like more of a process and progression. It made me think of the old, old days when people (I gather) really did bathe before ordinances, and also Jewish ritual bathing. Just too weird for us today.
My institute instructor was a proponent of the endowment “penalties”. He showed us parallels in the OT with the covenants that Israel was making with Jehovah back in the day.
This reminds me that there can be symbolic beauty even in things that many would find objectionable. This also reminds me that we can make changes and even develop new symbolic meanings to fit our modern circumstances.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t miss the penalties. But I also didn’t mind them. They were one of the first things I recognized as symbolic in the temple, and it took me many years to realize it’s all symbolic.
It took me a long time to look at any of it symbolically. I felt like I knew what the words meant, and even if I could guess that it might be a holdover from paranoid early church times, I thought the whole passage was gruesome. But it’s interesting to wonder if it was a mistake to take them out. Maybe retaining them would have forced us to talk about how and if it’s all symbolic. Really talk about it, not just quickly quote the line that says it is.
And for women “it’s all symbolic” breaks down pretty quickly with what feels like concrete promises to position ourselves a certain way in relation to God and men.
The initiatory was always my favorite part of the temple ordinances – except for the huge negative of being naked (except for the shield.) The initiatory is the only part of the endowment that explicitly explains anything about the unusual clothing we wear. The only thing I know about the temple clothing is the garment, because that’s the only piece that seems to be non-secret. Even though I’m required to wear the endowment clothing it’s shrouded in mystery and secrecy. Quote:I wonder if the initiatory became a bottleneck ordinance?
On the contrary, the real bottleneck is the endowment, followed by sealings (due to the number of people who have to be involved and no role for women ordinance workers). The fastest are initiatories (which use both sexes of ordinance workers and are fairly fast), and baptisms & confirmations (fastest of all, but only male ordinance workers including witnesses). From a pure efficiency standpoint, the endowment needs to be broken down further. Initiatories used to be part of the endowment. When my parents went through it was 4 hours end to end.
My one worry would be that doing them clothed means they can further eliminate the role of women in the temple. Maybe all the women will be reassigned to the kitchen and laundry. We can’t witness or perform any ordinances. We can’t check recommends at the entrance.
I am as certain as I can be that women will continue to perform the initiatory for women. I think the change in the initiatory is great. I agree with SilentDawning that originally being naked except for the shield regarding the church’s teaching about modesty was weird. I’m glad it changed. 
hawkgrrrl wrote:We can’t check recommends at the entrance.
This is low hanging fruit. The Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t say that you need to hold the priesthood in order to check recommends. Wonder what steps would be necessary to get the church to change this? The ‘let women pray in General Conference’ campaign was actually successful and I see this being along those same lines.
I don’t actually attend the temple, partly because the endowment makes me uncomfortable, partly because women’s roles are so severely limited. I haven’t attended any youth temple trips to do baptisms for the dead because unlike my husband, they only need me there to hand out towels and make sure the changing room doesn’t get trashed. Ummm, I can stay home and do that.
Quick note regarding nakedness and touching. For those who never went through the old style of initiatories, I’m certain that there has been a lot of freaking out about this thread. Naked. As hawkgrrrl pointed out, the shield was sufficient coverage for the ‘patron’ not to be exposed. I’m not saying it wasn’t strange the first time and even times after when I knew what to expect, but it also did have a sort of beautiful meaning. Sort of like “From dust thou art” or “Naked came I into the world”. I was glad when I heard about the changes around 2000, but it was not as terrifyingly creepy as could be imagined without ever having experienced it. I doubt that to 18th century people it seemed as out-of-place. Being naked in the presence of others was just a part of our society until pretty recently. When I was in the ninth grade, the coaches kept the towels in the office. We’d shower in a big room, then walk about 30 feet buck naked and dripping wet through the locker room to collect a towel. That wasn’t in church or in Utah.
Touching. There was no touching of private parts. I never felt violated or concerned about who was performing the ordinance in any way. The ordinance symbolically washed and anointed various general areas of the body, but this was done by a simple dab of water or oil. I am certain that motivation for the changes has been driven by people who did, and rightfully, feel uncomfortable. I can easily see how this ordinance would not sit well with many people, but many others felt it didn’t cross any boundaries. So, when those who have never experienced it try to imagine it, just keep in mind that if you feel creeped-out by it, you may be over-imagining it.
I felt that in the context and environment of the temple, there was a certain amount of sense in the ordinance. I applaud the Church for moving to a safer zone where there is no need for ANYONE to feel uncomfortable about it, yet to maintain the same basic idea. Is the concept diluted from what it was before? Yes. But is it worth it to free the ordinance of baggage? Yes. And that would be a great model for the Church to follow on many, many fronts.
On Own Now wrote:Quick note regarding nakedness and touching. For those who never went through the old style of initiatories, I’m certain that there has been a lot of freaking out about this thread.
Naked. As hawkgrrrl pointed out, the shield was sufficient coverage for the ‘patron’ not to be exposed. I’m not saying it wasn’t strange the first time and even times after when I knew what to expect, but it also did have a sort of beautiful meaning. Sort of like “From dust thou art” or “Naked came I into the world”. I was glad when I heard about the changes around 2000, but it was not as terrifyingly creepy as could be imagined without ever having experienced it. I doubt that to 18th century people it seemed as out-of-place. Being naked in the presence of others was just a part of our society until pretty recently. When I was in the ninth grade, the coaches kept the towels in the office. We’d shower in a big room, then walk about 30 feet buck naked and dripping wet through the locker room to collect a towel. That wasn’t in church or in Utah.
Touching. There was no touching of private parts. I never felt violated or concerned about who was performing the ordinance in any way. The ordinance symbolically washed and anointed various general areas of the body, but this was done by a simple dab of water or oil. I am certain that motivation for the changes has been driven by people who did, and rightfully, feel uncomfortable. I can easily see how this ordinance would not sit well with many people, but many others felt it didn’t cross any boundaries. So, when those who have never experienced it try to imagine it, just keep in mind that if you feel creeped-out by it, you may be over-imagining it.
I felt that in the context and environment of the temple, there was a certain amount of sense in the ordinance. I applaud the Church for moving to a safer zone where there is no need for ANYONE to feel uncomfortable about it, yet to maintain the same basic idea. Is the concept diluted from what it was before? Yes. But is it worth it to free the ordinance of baggage? Yes. And that would be a great model for the Church to follow on many, many fronts.
Well said, OON. I feel the same (and my high school experience was quite similar).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.