Of course many of you know that we had a discussion about the temple this past Sunday on Google Hangouts. I hope you were able to listen in or watch. If not, a recording is available.
I’m curious to get your feedback on the fireside discussion. Some questions in my mind are:
- Was it helpful to you? In what way?
- Did you learn new things? What?
- Did you enjoy it? Why?
- Were you nervous about what might be said? Did we assuage that fear?
- What did you think of the length? Shorter? Longer?
- What did you think of the contributors? (Be nice!)
- Was the material we addressed accessible and understandable?
- Did the discussion encourage you to go learn more on your own?
- Do you believe it is helpful for the Church in general, both for members within the Church to learn about the temple, and for outsiders to gain a greater understanding of our temple traditions? (Ok, that’s a loaded one.)
- Any concerns? Suggestions? Critiques?
Before I schedule the next one, which might be as soon as this coming Sunday, August 12, I want to get your take on this, so we can improve it or cancel it. Please take a moment to share with us your thoughts in the comments below.
There seemed to be a lot of discussion unrelated to the theme, introducing individuals, getting them back online, etc. It distracted from the overall discussion.
I suggest you put out discussion notes for the panel beforehand, so they have an idea of the points you want to discuss.
Also, while I recognize the names of those on the panel, I’m unsure of their experience in temple studies. It does me little good to know someone has a degree in law or business, (or in your case, BFA) if we do not know how much study/research they’ve done in the temple realm. Since the group’s degrees do not reflect experience (I do not recall anyone with history, philosophy, religion degree), then we need to know their background that fits the discussion. Otherwise, we could be spending our time listening to several amateurs that will quote Andrew Skinner, but not really add much to the material. It is one thing to pass along interesting information, it is another thing to be able to synthesize the information and present it in new ways that instruct and perhaps inspire the audience.
The idea of the notes, is to get basic points of discussion before hand from the panelists, so that you can keep the discussion on track, running smoothly, and not getting bogged down. Kind of like a Ward Council meeting: if the bishop has a specific agenda in front of him, he can guide the discussion and a lot can get accomplished. If he only has general notes, then discussion will often get bogged down on things that may not mean a lot. There’s a difference between busy work and accomplishing effective work. A good plan always moves you along to important points.
Actually, I enjoyed the free flow of ideas — more like an actual conversation between scholars. I learned several new things about the Temple and found new resources — like David O. McKay’s talk on the Temple given in the Salt Lake Temple annex in 1941, which was wonderful!! Another resource which was mentioned was Bancroft’s History of Utah — pages 357-358. It was also good to be reminded of President Benson’s thought about the fact that everything about the Temple that we need to know can be found in the scriptures.
For those of us who love the Temple and serve in it as both patrons and workers, and, who also teach Temple Preparation classes in our Wards, this talk is an amazing resource which I had not seen before — and I’ve seen and read extensively about the Temple!!!
I’m so glad, too, that the fireside was recorded. I’ll want to listen to it again to pick up more information.
I think the most important thing I heard in the broadcast was from Brother Huchel who said that he was instructed by a General Authority while working in the Salt Lake Temple on the translations of Temple ordinances that there are only two things we can’t discuss outside the Temple — i.e., the marks on the garments and their meanings, and the signs and tokens. As one who helps prepare others to receive their Temple ordinances, THIS particular piece of information was worth listening to this fireside many times over! I can’t thank Brother Huchel enough for mentioning it. I also wonder, if there had been a “tight,” pre-determined outline — other than Brother Skinner’s book itself — if that would have been mentioned.
The other part of the discussion which I found to be particularly valuable was the discussion about the physical nature of the Temple — it being a template of the actual, physical universe. I think that is so grounding.
As a vocalist and musician, I also thought the information about the vibrations, string theory, etc., was fascinating.
Getting back to my comment about what should and should not be talked about outside the Temple; I was mainly talking about what could be discussed during a private, Temple Preparation class. As we teach such a class, my husband and I tend to lean in your direction and definitely rely on the spirit to tell us what we can say and what we can’t; however, as the parent of a child who found the Temple Endowment disturbing because of a lack (I think — or at least wonder about) of good preparation on the part of those who instructed her; I tend to want to give future patrons enough information to try to really prepare them for the symbolic representation, etc., that they will encounter in the Temple. (After all, the Temple ordinances really are presented in a manner different than the way anything else we encounter in the gospel is presented.) Thus, as I read David O. McKay’s talk after listening to the fireside, and found that he was comfortable sharing even more than my husband and usually share in such classes, I will be including the information he shared with them with future participants in our classes as directed by the spirit.
Also, because that particular talk was so helpful to me and also to my husband, who is currently in the middle of teaching a group Temple Preparation Class at church, I wonder if it would be possible after future firesides to give us the specific verbal reference information mentioned during your fireside in written form on your blog.
Just so you know, I can’t thank you enough for all your efforts on this blog and on the new Interpreter.
I think the temple prep manual does not prepare teacher nor student for the class. It is too vague to mean anything in regards to preparing the initiate for the experience they are going to receive. So, when a person receives his/her endowment, the things they learned have no connection, because no real connections were made in class.
I’d like to see a discussion of the ancient temple, the symbolism therein, and the importance of the various rooms of the ancient temple. Then discuss the concept of returning into the presence of the Lord. Such an emphasis allows a person going through the endowment to see how the various pieces fit together to an end. Right now, the lesson plan gives puzzle pieces that do not fit well together, because too many pieces are still missing.
We can discuss those things clearly stated in scripture. So why don’t the lessons talk more about the covenants of obedience, sacrifice, and consecration? In explaining those things before, the initiates will better understand the covenants made in the temple.
Explaining that the temple represents the universe, and the initiate is going through an experience of Creation, a cycle of the eternal round. We begin in God’s presence and the divine council, we go to earth where we forget everything, we sin and fall, we are promised a Savior. The Savior atones for our sins and we move from a Telestial life to a higher Terrestrial life. There we make higher covenants with God, preparing us to return to his presence in the Celestial Kingdom/Room.
As taught in the Old Testament, we can discuss the ancient temple and the practice of washing and anointing the priests, so they are holy enough to serve in the temple.
By explaining things in these terms, we are not too explicit, yet we can give them some real information to prepare them for the experience.
Yes, the instructors can spruce it up. However, there are two problems with this. First, many members are too afraid to say anything regarding the temple, because they are afraid it all is too sacred to speak about – and the manual seems to back up that reticence. Second, many members do not understand the symbolism enough to teach the things I mentioned. Because of a lack of understanding/experience, they may end up saying too much (I had a high priest group assistant of mine, who used to quote the temple stuff, and I had to ask him to not quote it anymore. He was in his 70s at the time).
I would really like to see all the Church manuals updated, so that they teach the doctrines Pres Packer would like us to learn about. Of course, I’ve written and spoken on this many times in the past….
Thaks for the above reference on President Benson’s talk. I was going to ask for it, and now I don’t have to!
Just found the link to Nibley’s talk from the dedication of the London Temple in April of 1958 in case anyone wants it. (It is also published in Nibley’s book, Mormonism and Early Christianity pp. 355 -370.)
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/nibley-hugh-w-what-temple
I admire the dedication here to learn about the temple. I sense from many of the comments a sincere desire to learn from the Spirit as well as from each other, with a conscious effort to try and determine what is appropriate.
That being said, two recent developments will most likely prevent me from visiting the site again.
First, the internet isn’t a bubble. It’s not a private conversation in sacred rooms in our temples, our chapels, or our homes. Anybody can join in the discussion, and while that is good, it also seems to be drifting closer and closer to speaking of things in such as way that would present advanced doctrines to those still wrestling to achieve one of the first and last great purposes of life – and the template, namely, to receive the Holy Ghost.
On a related note, it is worrisome to see both misunderstandings about the temple preparation correlated texts as well as thoughts on why it is insufficient. The temple preparation manual, especially when used in conjunction with study, prayer, pondering, and temple stewardship convey precisely what those who enter the temples will need so they are prepared spiritually and intellectually.
Just because a prophet – or any man or woman speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost – shares certain doctrines in certain settings does not mean that can then be safely applied under any setting. Many times, it is the audience itself whose preparation will catalyze greater outpourings of the Spirit. It is wise, as someone commented, to have a storehouse of knowledge that can be shared when prompted by the Spirit. Yet even in settings where there is a great deal of preparation, sacred ground should be treated with the appropriate respect or the Spirit may withdraw. The audience of the internet raises many concerns in this regard.
Perhaps most importantly, however, is my concern there is what appears to be open agreement the correlated materials for the temple preparation course are inadequate. Our manuals may not be, and are not, perfect. But it is very concerning for me to read comments that not only highlight the supposed inadequacy of the text, but to see comments go so far as to state it needs sprucing up. In and of themselves, these comments may be relatively – thought not completely – harmless. What concerns me greatly is the possibility of what could be a natural extension, namely, offering up what that sprucing up should entail – and then beginning to teach it to (1) an unprepared, perhaps even at times hostile, audience online, and (2) a select number of people who have gathered together and created a formal or informal select group. The words of the prophets come to mind that when individual members take it upon themselves to correct errors of the church – real errors or otherwise – they are on the road down to apostasy.
In other words, it seems as if the change in direction this blog seems to be taking has the potential to lead individuals astray. That is a serious issue, and I would hate to see extant group members, forthcoming members – especially those who may lack an independent witness of how God’s desired doctrine is properly revealed and taught – and an anonymous internet audience be harmed. Is this starting to move in the direction of looking beyond the mark, deciding what should or should not be taught and to whom, and discussing at what point a line should be drawn in the sand signalling one is approaching sacred ground.
While it may appear innocent at present, there is the potential these comments and motivations could trend in such a way as to form a select group of individuals whose purpose is to privately (other verbiage is used in scripture, especially The Book of Mormon) interpret doctrine, determine how much should be shared, how it should be taught, and why it is appropriate for the prophets, or other authorized and imperfect representatives such as Correlation members, to be relegated to second fiddle behind those who profess to know better.
Other deviations could follow as well, including for example, suggestions that a fundraising drive be set up or that others donate funds so that the key members or leaders of the group – not the Church, but a group of individuals on the internet whose many words are accessible by anyone – can devote themselves entirely to study of the temple. Patrons in this sense would be a blessing to any who could secure the financial support, but the concern in this regard is that a potential progression would then be for those individuals to then teach what they learn to the same group. In this hypothetical, even if motivations were pure, it would still present an appearance of priestcraft that could ultimately spiritually harm the very individuals trying to more fully understand salvation as revealed in the temples of the Divine.
I should also add that it is exponentially easier for a wolf to appear in the clothing of sheep when the only clothing required is a username and email address.
Due to my concern of being publicly affiliated at present with the website in its current constitution, I have entered my name as “Concerned with questions.” These comments may not be pleasant to hear, but other criticisms in this very thread have been handled with diplomacy and peacemaking. I would request you allow this comment to be posted without redaction so that readers can discuss the questions and concerns at hand, speak openly about others concerns they may have privately, and determine how best to proceed.
It would be unfortunate to not return to this site as I have been stimulated by some of the links and perspectives shared. However, I am willing to find other sites that approach the topic in a manner more aligned with scriptural principles of sharing doctrine. I make this final comment not as a challenge or rebuke, but rather a sincere expression of regret that I may no longer be able to follow the blog.
Thank you so much for the above comment, Bryce. I heartily concur on everything you have said — especially about the Temple Preparation materials. My husband and I use the manual as a guide and add to it as directed by the spirit.
We have also seen individuals come to the Temple and have problems with the ritualistic nature of the ordinances — especially the Endowment — and decide to never return or to only come infrequently. Thus, anything we can do — within the confines of the spirit — while preparing such individuals to attend the Temple is important to us to do. Sites like this and books about the Temple written by careful authors such as Brother Skinner and Brother Nibley are great resources for that.
By the way, I guess that I missed the information about making donations to your site. I would be happy to donate. Please let me know how.
Also, did you get the information I sent you about the link for the David O. McKay talk from the Temple Annex? If you didn’t, I’ll give it to you again.
Are you suggesting that because a member of the church committee expressed his displeasure with the state of church manuals that it is a justification for you to take it upon yourself as a member of the church who doesn’t have stewardship for your online audience to explain why the books as currently constituted are inadequate from your perspective, even when accompanied by the interpretations of the Holy Ghost?
The scriptures and relevant church handbooks are clear that lesson manuals serve as a guide for the doctrines to be taught. By sticking to the doctrines, we stay on safe ground. However, I think too many people approach the lesson manuals in a superficial manner. It is a noble thing to want to prepare others for the temple as much as possible. In all of my experiences teaching and overseeing temple preparation courses, rarely were students taken aback by their experiences in the temple if their instructors A) prepared for the class, B) plead for the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and C) had a personal witness of the doctrines of the temple. These variables, and I’m sure there are others, are what we bring to the table and use in conjunction with the manuals to meet the needs of each unique individual of the class. This constant searching for new material is encouraged by the brethren. My concern is that there is a different feel in the tone when others take it upon themselves to solve a problem for the church that either doesn’t exist when all of the available facts can be considered, or to take it upon themselves to solve a problem that lies under the stewardship of others. In other words, it seems as if there is difference between saying, “This is a challenging manual to use. Since we desire what is best for those we teach and for those who do the teaching, perhaps we can share some of our experiences and see how we might be able to become more effective,” and “This is a challenging manual to use. Since we desire what is best for those we teach and for those who do the teachings, let’s take a look at how we can spruce up the manual, especially since we are left to nothing more than the assistance of the Holy Ghost in the absence of a great scholar such as Hugh Nibley.”
I am also confused by your comment about how serving in a bishopric provided you with a complete understanding of what apostasy is and that you would never come close to that on this blog where you learn about the temple in part by discussing how to spruce up church manuals and debating where the line should be drawn as to what is appropriate to share in an online forum. At least as far as my own mortal weaknesses are concerned, I have recognized that if I ever reach the point where I think to myself, let alone declare to others, that I would never commit a certain sin, then I am treading on unstable ground.
Your devotion to Hugh Nibley is admirable, and I expect Dr. Peterson would be similarly grateful for your loyalty to him. I come at the issue from another perspective. For me, the fact that Nibley is no longer around to write a church manual or that Correlation would impede similar writings moving forward isn’t as much of a concern as it appears to be to others. The Holy Ghost is responsible for teaching gospel truths. As we seek to live our lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel, including restraining ourselves from attempting to steady the ark, and seek the Spirit in our lessons, we learn that degree of doctrine for which we are prepared whether the lesson is being taught be a primary pianist who barely speaks English or one of the most reputable scholars in the church today just as Bob Millett or Richard Bushman.
In some ways, I think our disagreement on this issue stems from not carefully considering the wording chosen in the original comment as well as a much more innocent problem of semantics. However, the adamant nature of the response confirms to me that if the study group began to go down the wrong path, there would either be no one to recognize it and point it out, or there would be justifications made in the name of Hugh Nibley or other individuals whose situations are similar, yet far from identical, to those at hand.
I wish you the best moving forward, but unfortunately the new format of the blog combined with the response to my comments makes me feel as if it would be best for me to withdraw from the site. I will use my influence in sharing those thoughts with family and friends that would be most likely to happen upon the site, but will refrain from visiting here and posting any comments that would serve as a frustration. My purpose was not and is not to irritate, but rather to confirm the motivations and doctrinal understandings behind the new direction of the blog.
I apologize if I misunderstood your request for donations. For some reason, based on the postings on the blog, my understanding was that you had hoped to one day receive enough donations to be able to do this work full time. The fact that this is not a goal of yours combined with your sincere desires not to create an inner circle or special group of church members eases my mind a great deal about what appeared like early stages of priestcraft. I still worry about the justifications provided in terms of those within my own stewardship, but won’t interfere with your efforts.
Please don’t feel pressured to post this comment. I think it certainly contributes to the discussion, but it’s clear from my original posting that certain follow-up comments were based on a cursory reading. At that point, individuals begin responding to each other with miscommunications growing more pronounced each turn of the cycle.
The problem with many of the manuals is they skim across the water of doctrine. We do not teach much more to the adults that we teach to the Deacons and Beehives. And if the members do not understand how to access or teach the doctrine any deeper than the manuals, then we end up with a church full of spiritually illiterate people.
We do not have a paid professional clergy. We expect cab drivers and stone masons to suddenly know how to be a bishop or gospel doctrine teacher. In reality, while the Spirit may help, it cannot overcome the understanding gap.
Bryce and anyone else reading this thread: for several years I was the Assistant Recorder and later acting Recorder in a Temple; I had the responsibility of interviewing every new patron receiving their endowment. It was disturbing to me how often people arrived with a very limited, even non-existent, understanding of what they were about to receive.
We have come a long way since then with the Temple Preparation classes and manuals. Speakers and writers in the church have been much more open in their comments and there is a lot more information out there online about the Temple. So we have come a long way. BUT – we still have quite a way to go. While it is necessary to always remain cautious about what we say and allude to, having read your responses and comments on this thread I applaud your approach and efforts.
I am very grateful for this blog/website. While I agree that the Temple Prep manuals do have a good purpose and they do help. I have to say that going to the Temple my first time, I found myself overwhelmed by the experience. I have to state the previously before my going to the Temple I did have a spiritual experience that sort helped me get through the overwhelming immensity that I felt my first time going to the Temple. It didn’t give me all the answers but it was after I went that I remembered it and it gave me that sense of peace that at that time I needed. So I decided that the best way to over come that overwhelmed feeling I had was to go back to the Temple.
Later on I found this website and I have to say between my own experiences in the Temple and being here, it has helped. I understand the concept of not revealing sacred things but the things I have seen here, make connections between what Temple going members already know and show things that are already pretty much part of our society, our culture and our background as humanity.
If we notice a connection then that’s fine. I have my degree in English, when I was in college and wrote a lot of papers, it was my duty to try and find a connection in my studies and the the topics I was reading. I would do my best to link a connection to what I noticed and attempt to make my point noticed by my professors. Sometimes my professors acknowledge the connection, other times they found it lacking. But at any rate I noticed a connection and wanted it to be known. I basically the see the same thing here. There are things here that I notice are being linked to what goes on in the Temple but, if you wish to take that position, others may choose not to see any connection at all. So in the end I don’t believe any harm is being done at all because it’s all on how we precieve things.
Bryce, I would like to thank you for your efforts with this website (and the newly launched Interpreter site). I have been following your blogs for a couple years now, as I appreciate greatly a respectful and appropriate discussion about the temple (and indeed, ALL truth) in an exploratory way. I don’t believe that any supplement to or exploration of materials outside “authorized church manuals” qualifies as “apostasy.” In my view, there is much truth about the things of God and light to be gained from many, many places. Although I am open to being corrected/guided by the Lord as often as he sees fit to purge me, my spiritual path includes truths from many sources — our scriptures, the teachings of the temple, the apocrypha, bits and pieces of many religions and philosophies, and many schools of thought, initiation rites, and ideas, and much else that I won’t list here. To paraphrase Brigham Young, there is truth all over the earth in many places and ALL of it belongs to God and his Kingdom. Only the tiniest (yet essential) elements are officially repeated in the “authorized” manuals, but there is SO MUCH eternal truth and light (indeed, an infinite amount) pertaining to God.
I just finished reading “The Lost Symbol” and “The Da Vinci Code” both by Dan Brown. I enjoyed them both and I felt like they are applicable to us as LDS. I thought they were quite interesting. Particularly where “The Lost Symbol” discusses apotheosis, both of George Washington and of Mankind in general. How do you feel about them?
Bryce,
Having been an avid reader of your blog for some time, and as a long standing member of the Church and Temple goer, I am grateful for the additional insights that can and have been presented by this and other Temple related sites.
There is so much about the Temple, its origins, and connections, etc that can (and perhaps should) be more readily studied and discussed. I feel that too often some members are content to have a very shallow understanding of the Temple. Surely we should be striving to improve our understanding of these things. Much of our Temple understanding obviously comes through Temple attendance and through promptings of the Holy Ghost. Much also comes through concerted personal study.
Sites like this encourage members to gain that greater depth of understanding. There are indeed sacred subjects that we don’t discuss ( in accordance with what we are instructed in the Temple.) However, I endorse your comments that it IS appropriate to present and discuss many ‘meatier’ insights. I certainly have not felt in reading any of the articles on this site, that inappropriate boundaries (in terms of what should be discussed) have been crossed.
I’m sure the Lord would have us do all we can to increase our knowledge of the Temple. Often it takes previous Temple experience to appreciate the relevance of these insights anyway.
I can only say that my understanding of the Temple has been much augmented by the things I have learned on this and other Temple related sites. Thank you for your dedication and efforts in sharing these Temple related insights with us. Keep up the great work!!!