NOM

So, we don't burn animal flesh, act out executions, or have women submit to their husbands as their husbands submit to the Lord anymore. I see a process of change here, an evolution towards a new species of temple ordinance. Where is it going? This is surely an ongoing process.
I would hope in the future that we might see:
1-Non-members, Non-believers, and young people allowed to attend sealing/wedding ceremonies. This would require larger sealing rooms, and also an attitude change.
2- Vows could be changed to emphasize our relationship to God rather than to a church.
3. Heavenly Mother should be allowed to assume her dimly implied, but obviously huge role in the eternal plan. I don't know what details this might entail, but when we say we are offspring of Heavenly Parents, and then ignore (intentionally or otherwise) the role of the Heavenly Mother we probably need to pray for much more light and knowledge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see very, very few people who actually "get anything" out of the temple ceremony. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it definitely doesn't teach attendees any life skills that actually benefit them outside the walls of the temple. It's nothing more than a hamster wheel to keep retirees busy, and take 10% of their income. So that being said, it is not loss at all to humanity to completely get rid of the (plagiarized) temple ceremony. I know I type this all the time: Take all that money and time and DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR REAL, LIVE HUMANS.

(Please: If there is anyone here on NOM who has learned something from the temple that has given them better life skills, and actually improved their life, please please please tell me what it is you learned! Seriously: Tell me what I'm missing.)



As far as weddings, do like other countries: Get the church out of the legal wedding business. REQUIRE couples to have a civil wedding ceremony, get rid of the 1 year public shaming penalty, and let the couple go do the creepy cult ceremony (sealing) whenever they like.



Heavenly mother? Sorry, I don't see MORMONs ever being able to get any sort of goddess worship right. They have no concept whatsoever how to really get rid of the misogyny and patriarchy. No. Clue. Whatsoever.



Sorry Deacon, I hope you don't see my angst aimed at you. It's the LDS Corporation in my sights. I have practically no hope whatsoever that they can really ever do anything right.

I don't think HM will ever appear, they are trying too hard to be evangelical, which is odd because evangelicals have a name for themselves right now as backward politically.

The only positive "skill" I see from the temple is the idea of quiet reflection to seek intuition.

The initiatory has some potential to be very uplifting, but then it's not.

deacon blues wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:57 pm

3. Heavenly Mother should be allowed to assume her dimly implied, but obviously huge role in the eternal plan. I don't know what details this might entail.....

Everything you suggest here would be great except I don't think the church wants to go anywhere near discussing more about "Heavenly Mother".

Because there isn't just one. There would actually be quite a few. Plural marriage in Heaven means just that. Mormon god has a bunch of wives who helped him populate his worlds and that is one can of worms that even Russy Nelson doesn't want to open.

That's why they avoid that topic. They know where it leads.

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:52 pm

So that being said, it is no loss at all to humanity to completely get rid of the (plagiarized) temple ceremony. I know I type this all the time: Take all that money and time and DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR REAL, LIVE HUMANS.

YEP!

This is where they really need to go with the temple concept. Just flush it right down the crapper

But if they do that it takes away all their leverage. No more psychological coercion. How will they ever get blood from all the little turnips out there?

They can't build malls by relying on the goodness of people's hearts. They don't have enough faith in God's influence on the people's hearts for that. They are hooked on temple worship as their cash cow just like the government is on taxes.

Bishops in reality are the Biblical publicans of the church.

Temple evolution is definitely one of those controversial subjects among the Saints.

Some who hold with the Young America theory, contend that the Temple in Salt Lake has been around since the creation, about 6,000 years ago. Certain scholars at Utah Valley University contend that Temples evolved from a rock outcropping at Adam-ondi-Ahman Missouri, to the ancient Temple of Solomon in Israel, to the gothic splendor of the Salt Lake City Temple. These so-called "Temple Evolutionists" have even been so bold as to point out that divergent species such as the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and the Familia Sagrada Basilica in Barcelona, and the Crystal Cathedral in Orange Grove, California exist as proof of Temple evolution. Temple fundamentalists insist that these other structures do not exist or were planted by Satan to deceive the faithful.

Hope that helps.

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:03 am

Temple evolution is definitely one of those controversial subjects among the Saints.

Some who hold with the Young America theory, contend that the Temple in Salt Lake has been around since the creation, about 6,000 years ago. Certain scholars at Utah Valley University contend that Temples evolved from a rock outcropping at Adam-ondi-Ahman Missouri, to the ancient Temple of Solomon in Israel, to the gothic splendor of the Salt Lake City Temple. These so-called "Temple Evolutionists" have even been so bold as to point out that divergent species such as the Cathedral of Notre Dame, and the Familia Sagrada Basilica in Barcelona, and the Crystal Cathedral in Orange Grove, California exist as proof of Temple evolution. Temple fundamentalists insist that these other structures do not exist or were planted by Satan to deceive the faithful.

Hope that helps.

Oh, whatever would we do without you and your wisdom, Mokshie?

Palerider wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:02 pm

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:52 pm

So that being said, it is no loss at all to humanity to completely get rid of the (plagiarized) temple ceremony. I know I type this all the time: Take all that money and time and DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR REAL, LIVE HUMANS.

YEP!

This is where they really need to go with the temple concept. Just flush it right down the crapper

But if they do that it takes away all their leverage. No more psychological coercion. How will they ever get blood from all the little turnips out there?

They can't build malls by relying on the goodness of people's hearts. They don't have enough faith in God's influence on the people's hearts for that. They are hooked on temple worship as their cash cow just like the government is on taxes.

Bishops in reality are the Biblical publicans of the church.

Yep. The fact that in reality the endowment is worthless is irrelevant. As a psychological motivation, it is priceless to the Church. Make people feel special, like you are giving them something no one else has, something that will get them into the highest heaven, and you can get them to do all kinds of things for you. The endowment is a promise the Church never has to deliver on, but it helps keep members bound to the Church.

They may change it, but they will never give it up. It’s too useful to them.

While they're at it, I would like to see them take it full circle and return the temples to what they were originally. Has no one notice that the temples that Joseph Smith built were meeting houses? The Kirtland temple was also the high school, and they held dances and feasts in the Nauvoo temple. Joseph Smith even let the Catholics use it for mass while it was under construction. If Joseph Smith showed up in SLC today he might very likely mistake the Conference Center for the temple.

It is fascinating to me that the modern church, despite it adoration of Joseph, and how quick they are to load Brigham into the under-the-bus catapult, really is the church of Brigham Young in so many ways.

wtfluff wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:52 pm

(Please: If there is anyone here on NOM who has learned something from the temple that has given them better life skills, and actually improved their life, please please please tell me what it is you learned! Seriously: Tell me what I'm missing.)

Let me give a substantive reply that is hardly flattering to the temple. The most spiritual experience I ever had in the temple happened because of technical difficulties. After the movie was done, the recording goes on to discuss further covenants. One day during my heavily believing phase the recording broke. I don't know what happened, but it simply stopped in mid sentence and the officiator said to just sit there quietly and they would have it back up and running in a few minutes after they fixed or replaced it.

I don't know what kind of scrambling was going on behind the scenes for the next 20 minutes. But I was sitting there experiencing something that was odd and rarely encountered in an LDS temple: Contemplative silence. I wisely decided to simply sit their and meditate on my blessings and the current state of my life. No one was shushing anyone else nor were any temple workers trying to hurry anyone along in or out of a room. I think I accidentally practiced mindfulness meditation and ended up with a rather delightful experience.

The recording did come back on and I was surprisingly disappointed to have my contemplation end. This points out something that is virtually not allowed in LDS temples. You cannot simply go in and sit in contemplative silence. You can have 10 or 15 minutes in the Celestial room after 90 minutes of the endowment. But LDS temples are simply not places of actual meditation. I expect that I could go into a lot of other Buddhist or Hinud temples and simply be allowed to sit in silence under many circumstances. I suspect this is possible in many Christian buildings.

But virtually no LDS building has space for serious contemplation. That kind of enlightenment is supposed to be done on your own time, not during church or temple worship. I suppose you can get a few minutes during the sacrament or during some waiting period in the temple. But this is mostly a side effect of the logistics of working with a congregation of people, not a design feature.

I agree with Corsair that the temple could be a great place for contemplative silence. I remember sometimes having a feeling of separation from the world and its cares, but then I would get interrupted by some instruction or an ordinance. And besides, contemplative silence can be achieved in nature or even "In My Room" as the Beach Boys eloquently pointed out. We have contemplative silences in the Presbyterian Church I attend, but they only last about 20 seconds.
I do feel Heavenly Mother is avoided out of deference to mainstream Christianity, which is still considered a main competitor by the missionary effort. I think a concept of God without a feminine aspect is lacking some kind of completeness. One way I deal with this is to consider God as less anthropomorphic and more a spiritual force, but I am open to suggestion- especially from God. I notice some Presbyterians favor language that is less gender specific when referring to God.
When I first went to the temple in 1975 my expectations had been built way too high, by teachers who depicted the temple as a spiritual university, where one learns "something new" every time. The worship by rote and rite was a major disappointment.
It seems to me the only way one might learn something new on every visit to the temple is through personal prayer, contemplation, and meditation, and the ordinances did not really seem to inspire that for me.

Corsair wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:53 am

You cannot simply go in and sit in contemplative silence. You can have 10 or 15 minutes in the Celestial room after 90 minutes of the endowment. But LDS temples are simply not places of actual meditation.

And this is a truly sad thing.

They build the experience up and tell you how wonderful it is but when you actually go through, it's much closer to some of the cattle herding rides I've been on.

Actually, come to think of it, at least on a cattle drive you get to be out in nature. It's reality based instead of trying to consume a meaningless cartoon fantasy that has obedience to other men as its only reason for existing.

Contemplative silence... Quiet Reflection...

"Benefits" of the temple which have nothing to do with the ritual, which ritual is actually the focus of "the temple."


Damn I'm such the antagonist. I've got major issues, likely some PTSD from mormonism's hyper-focus on the temple, if you haven't noticed...

deacon blues wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:57 pm

Heavenly Mother should be allowed to assume her dimly implied, but obviously huge role in the eternal plan. I don't know what details this might entail, but when we say we are offspring of Heavenly Parents, and then ignore (intentionally or otherwise) the role of the Heavenly Mother we probably need to pray for much more light and knowledge.

This is a time bomb for the institutional church that they have not attempted to defuse yet because every cut wire leads to something exploding. As far as I can tell there are four options and all of them are bad:

1. There is more than one Heavenly Mother. This is the radical option but ironically it will please older conservatives, tithe paying faithful, and the FLDS. Plural marriage in heaven is confirmed and this is especially for reassuring for elderly widowers like Russell and Dallin. Feminists, liberals, and intellectuals are not sure this is a victory. Mainstream Christians are horrified. This is, unfortunately, the most doctrinally secure answer in support of 19th century LDS history and the deeply important truth claims of the LDS church.
2. There is one Heavenly Mother. The devil remains in the details as some feminists come around to this line of thinking. Why won't she get any mention in the sacred temple ceremony? Many conservatives will condemn voicing this option like it was the horror of Coke machines on BYU campus. Eager Young Women's presidencies in your local ward hurriedly make up the next lesson for teen girls with this new, authorized image of divine womanhood. Mainstream, conservative Christianity remains in condemnation of the liberal (i.e., pagan) divine feminine having a place in a nominally Christian church.
3. There is no Heavenly Mother. A grudging acknowledgement from most of Christendom is provided as those crazy Mormons finally grasp the conclusion of the last two thousand years of Trinitarian debate. Faithful Mormons everywhere swallow their pride and "follow the prophet" discarding years of hope for the comfort of a mother in heaven. Carol Lynn Pearson pens the saddest poem ever. LDS liberal and feminists are cast adrift in their doctrinal stances and continue to be ignored by their local ward for their grasp of historical issues.
4. Keep doing the same thing and don't have a firm answer on the number of Heavenly Mothers. Now we come to the real politik of the situation. While this is what the institutional church is largely doing, they continue to hate having to shoulder this historical and doctrinal burden. This continues to be a sore spot for virtually everyone denied the LDS priesthood everytime someone sings the third verse of O My Father. Inquisitive Young Women remain in a state mild cognitive dissonance that might lead down the rabbit hole of the history of plural marriage. Yes, this is probably the safe choice politically.