Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

HappyJackWagon · January 3, 2019

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I personally never saw it as teaching that, but I do understand why some did.

I look at the proclamation to the family, for example, and see that God does not intend for men and women to have an unequal relationship, but believe that God does intend for men to preside in the marriage. That, and other teachings, have always influenced how I interpreted the temple covenant. I interpreted it as a covenant to allow my husband to preside, but I never believed that the lack of a covenant on his end meant that God didn't require my husband to listen to me.

But I think the wording of the covenant was a stumbling block to many (because it was easily misinterpreted, in my opinion) and so it makes sense to me that it would need to be clarified.

Just curious...how does placing man in place to preside, not create, or at least imply a dynamic of inequity in a marriage. We can talk about different definitions of "preside" but at it's core the word seems to imply that the person who presides is at the head. Maybe it's just a problem with the word preside, or my understanding of it, or the cultural use of it.

HappyJackWagon · January 3, 2019

30 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

Another feeling I came away with is that the Lord wants us to testify of the temple and with the testimony meeting coming up this Sunday, the timing couldn't be better. My testimony has been strengthened by the knowledge that our living prophet has indeed received these revelations needed to move the church forward and to hasten the work of the gathering of Israel

That is a nice sentiment but does it match the tone the brethren have set by telling people not to talk about ordinances or any changes?

mfbukowski · January 3, 2019

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, if you were endowed in 1980, you absolutely heard a lecture at the veil. It was a recorded summary of the ordinance that was played at the end of any session that included new endowees until 1990.

But the one JLHPROF is not doubt referring to is one that was given by Brigham Young in St George shortly before his death. There is actually no documentary evidence that it was ever given more than this once, but it's become a favourite treasure of certain fundamentalists. Quoting Buerger:

I don't know what you are talking about and neither does my wife. If you note the Fair article notes that it was not done at all temples.

carbon dioxide · January 3, 2019

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have a testimony that the Brethren will eventually come around to making needed changes after a problem has become big and visible enough. It will be considered revelation even though many outside the highest councils of the church already knew the change was needed.

I have a testimony that this helps pave the way for women functioning in more priesthood roles and the eventual acceptance of marriage equality for gay couples. I have a testimony that those revelations will also come.

Lets not get carried away. Acceptance of married gay couples as not being disqualifying from church membership is probably about 10 bridges too far. I think what would happen to the church would be what has happened to other churches. Deep division and breakup which would be far more profound than what happened after Joseph Smith died would occur.

Edited January 3, 2019 by carbon dioxide

SettingDogStar · January 3, 2019

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think the problem in their eyes is that if you provide a rationale for the changes, then it comes across as a human-inspired change rather than a divine one. In this particular case, the changes were directly a result of complaints and concerns that have been sent into Salt Lake over the past years, but Church leadership intentionally only wanted to frame it as only coming from revelation.

FWIW, I like the research, ponder, and pray approach to revelation, but for reasons (I assume of asserting a level of authority) Church leadership wants to imply that their form of revelation is somehow different.

Tied to assertions of authority is the problem of the traditional LDS apostasy narrative I mentioned earlier. If/when other traditions altered ordinances, they didn't think they were going against God's will. That would be silly. Rather, they had a rationale and believed that God was supporting the change. (I add the *if* because it's not always clear that the LDS versions is the original form while others are not.) I think that Latter-day Saints are hesitant to allow human-thinking to be a part of the process because we want it to be entirely different from those "apostate" traditions.

I don’t mind human-thinking being part of the equation. That’s how blacks were given the priesthood from what i understand (among other things), the social/political pressure was getting intense and this motivated the apostles to start praying and actually asking the Lord which I don’t think most of them had been (I know it’s a generalization but you get the idea).

I just wish they’d come out and say it, I don’t mind the change I just want to know why the change!

The Nehor · January 3, 2019

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

So nothing was actually restored from an ancient pure ordinance with specific wording? Why should anyone care what words or forms are used in the ordinances then?

Because they teach. The teaching becomes clearer as the ordinance is perfected. We are required to use the ordinance that those with the keys to administer the ordinance instruct us to to use.

There might be some perfected form of the ordinance in heaven but it would be useless to us. Maybe Adam and Eve got a more perfect version in Adamic or Enochian or whatever. We would not know the language or the culture if we got that and it would probably mislead more then instruct. We get a shadow of the full meaning in our language written designed in a way to try to reach us as we are.

rockpond · January 3, 2019

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Lets not get carried away. Acceptance married gay couples as not being disqualifying from church membership is probably about 10 bridges too far

It’s still my testimony.

Jerry Ray · January 3, 2019

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is a nice sentiment but does it match the tone the brethren have set by telling people not to talk about ordinances or any changes?

I truly think the reason they don't want us to talk about it is so people can get the full effect for themselves and not go in with any preconceived notions. Surely they realize that people will talk about it anyway. My feeling that I need to testify about the Temple came to me in the CR ... after the endowment. I will testify because I truly believe that the holy spirit moved in me. I think these changes are exactly what the church needs at this time in its history and this isn't over yet.. there will be more milk before we get the meat

The Nehor · January 3, 2019

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I don’t mind human-thinking being part of the equation. That’s how blacks were given the priesthood from what i understand (among other things), the social/political pressure was getting intense and this motivated the apostles to start praying and actually asking the Lord which I don’t think most of them had been (I know it’s a generalization but you get the idea).

I just wish they’d come out and say it, I don’t mind the change I just want to know why the change!

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

Duncan · January 3, 2019

Some discussion back about Temples being the most holy, I came across this idea from the Teachings of President Benson,

"We are a covenant-making people. The temple is one of the holy places in which the Savior commanded the faithful to stand. It is a holy place because it is a house of covenants. (Boise Idaho Temple Dedication, 25 May 1984.)" Just going off the statement, "A dedicated temple is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth"

I take it then that it's more holy than wherever there is a baptismal font located

carbon dioxide · January 3, 2019

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It’s still my testimony.

I am ok with that.

cfi · January 3, 2019

My mother explained her understanding of the apparent "inequality" to me several years ago:

Adam and Eve are married, and each voices a portion of a covenant they are entering into jointly. Neither is making an individual covenant. There are two parts to the covenant, just as there are two people in the marriage.

Adam voices the part that pledges obedience to God. Eve voices the part in which they agree to work together as partners -- to listen to each other's counsel, and to help each other in their obedience to God.

The split voice helps illustrate that husbands and wives have different but equal roles. Even so, both are bound by the full covenant. Both have a direct connection to God. Neither is an intermediary or an inferior.

The new changes seem to agree with my mother's understanding.

The covenant has not changed, but the revised presentation removes the need to "work around" the awkward split-voice language, and makes explicit the eternal principle that was always there: husbands and wives are equal partners.

SettingDogStar · January 3, 2019

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

Thanks I’ll give it a read, but the story was more to illustrate a point then bring up another subject..even if my understanding of the issue lacks some of the detail.

SouthernMo · January 3, 2019

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because they teach. The teaching becomes clearer as the ordinance is perfected. We are required to use the ordinance that those with the keys to administer the ordinance instruct us to to use.

There might be some perfected form of the ordinance in heaven but it would be useless to us. Maybe Adam and Eve got a more perfect version in Adamic or Enochian or whatever. We would not know the language or the culture if we got that and it would probably mislead more then instruct. We get a shadow of the full meaning in our language written designed in a way to try to reach us as we are.

My confusion comes when there is disagreement or a lack of clarity around whether ordinances are perfected over time, or diluted over time. We accuse the Catholic (original) church of diluting the ordinances as they changed/added/abandoned certain elements. But when LDS make changes to ordinances we praise it as progress/clarification/perfection. We may be blinding ourselves with our pride that 'we have the authority.' Note that the original (Caltholic) church makes the same authoritative claim.

The double standard of how LDS view changing ordinances/sacraments between the two faiths and contexts is mind-boggling to me.

Edited January 3, 2019 by SouthernMo

the narrator · January 3, 2019

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

Case in point. There was more going on than the side box in the article lets on. Deseret Book explicitly did not want the full background for the priesthood revelation to be in the published biography.

SouthernMo · January 3, 2019

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

This is nice. Looking forward to reading it. But it does not for me address the concern that the LDS church did not address it. A paper by a BYU professor 30 years after the fact is not an official explanation from the church - despite the familial link.

hope_for_things · January 3, 2019

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because they teach. The teaching becomes clearer as the ordinance is perfected. We are required to use the ordinance that those with the keys to administer the ordinance instruct us to to use.

There might be some perfected form of the ordinance in heaven but it would be useless to us. Maybe Adam and Eve got a more perfect version in Adamic or Enochian or whatever. We would not know the language or the culture if we got that and it would probably mislead more then instruct. We get a shadow of the full meaning in our language written designed in a way to try to reach us as we are.

It seems to me like this jettisons a basic premise of Mormonism that God was restoring very specifically important changes to rituals that had been corrupted over the years by Christian churches and that God revealed through Joseph the actual true and pure forms of these rituals in great specificity.

SettingDogStar · January 3, 2019

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My confusion comes when there is disagreement or a lack of clarity around whether ordinances are perfected over time, or diluted over time. We accuse the Catholic (original) church of diluting the ordinances as they changed/added/abandoned certain elements. But when LDS make changes to ordinances we praise it as progress/clarification/perfection. We may be blinding ourselves with our pride that 'we have the authority.' Note that the original (Caltholic) church makes the same authoritative claim.

The double standard of how LDS view changing ordinances/sacraments between the two faiths and contexts is mind-boggling to me.

Totally agree. The Spirit is a guide and can confirm wether a change was needed or not, obviously that’s important to keep in mind..however..from an outside view changing ordinances is an interesting subject. If we offered better explanations, even if it was only to temple goers (since everyone seems to get different impressions and interpretations of why this and why that), that would probably help the double standard issue a little.

bluebell · January 3, 2019

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just curious...how does placing man in place to preside, not create, or at least imply a dynamic of inequity in a marriage. We can talk about different definitions of "preside" but at it's core the word seems to imply that the person who presides is at the head. Maybe it's just a problem with the word preside, or my understanding of it, or the cultural use of it.

I think it's because in my understanding, being the head does not make one superior to anyone else, so that's why I don't see it as producing inequality in marriage. Neither do I believe that being the head is an enviable position, nor do I believe that being asked to follow puts anyone at a disadvantage.

The apostles in Christ's day were always trying to be in charge and Jesus kept trying to get them to change the way they thought about that concept because how they interpreted being 'the head' wasn't correct, but they never really seemed to get to the place where He wanted them to be. I think our culture and society in the church still struggle greatly with that same problem.

bluebell · January 3, 2019

13 minutes ago, cfi said:

My mother explained her understanding of the apparent "inequality" to me several years ago:

Adam and Eve are married, and each voices a portion of a covenant they are entering into jointly. Neither is making an individual covenant. There are two parts to the covenant, just as there are two people in the marriage.

Adam voices the part that pledges obedience to God. Eve voices the part in which they agree to work together as partners -- to listen to each other's counsel, and to help each other in their obedience to God.

The split voice helps illustrate that husbands and wives have different but equal roles. Even so, both are bound by the full covenant. Both have a direct connection to God. Neither is an intermediary or an inferior.

The new changes seem to agree with my mother's understanding.

The covenant has not changed, but the revised presentation removes the need to "work around" the awkward split-voice language, and makes explicit the eternal principle that was always there: husbands and wives are equal partners.

That's a really interesting way to look at it. Thanks for sharing!

SettingDogStar · January 3, 2019

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's because in my understanding, being the head does not make one superior to anyone else, so that's why I don't see it as producing inequality in marriage. Neither do I believe that being the head is an enviable position, nor do I believe that being asked to follow puts anyone at a disadvantage.

The apostles in Christ's day were always trying to be in charge and Jesus kept trying to get them to change the way they thought about that concept because how they interpreted being 'the head' wasn't correct, but they never really seemed to get to the place where He wanted them to be. I think our culture and society in the church still struggle greatly with that same problem.

Totally agree. Being a follower does not produce inequality as we understand it. Just because the Apostles have been called to be the earthly “head” does not mean they are more worthy, loved, or privileged then we are. We can receive the same revelations, confirmations, and understandings they have. Heck I’d dare say a righteous member of the church might even have greater visions then an Apostles, though they wouldn’t be authorized to share it, teach it, or lead the church.

The Lord has His ways and I think we might do well in attempting to understand what He means instead of using our own lens of understanding.

the narrator · January 3, 2019

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is nice. Looking forward to reading it. But it does not for me address the concern that the LDS church did not address it. A paper by a BYU professor 30 years after the fact is not an official explanation from the church - despite the familial link.

The official account of the 1978 priesthood and temple revelation is presented as almost entirely mystical, with a revelation coming to Kimball after considerable prayer and then to the rest of the 14 in the temple. The fuller story involves a lot more debate, research, and one-by-one convincing to establish a consensus. By the time they gathered in the temple, they were all already in agreement with what needed to be done. (Well, not all, as two apostles were not in attendance.) Obviously, the more mystical narrative is the one the Church wants to emphasize.

The Nehor · January 3, 2019

9 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My confusion comes when there is disagreement or a lack of clarity around whether ordinances are perfected over time, or diluted over time. We accuse the Catholic (original) church of diluting the ordinances as they changed/added/abandoned certain elements. But when LDS make changes to ordinances we praise it as progress/clarification/perfection. We may be blinding ourselves with our pride that 'we have the authority.' Note that the original (Caltholic) church makes the same authoritative claim.

The double standard of how LDS view changing ordinances/sacraments between the two faiths and contexts is mind-boggling to me.

The difference is that we have the keys. Maybe it is a double standard but in my view it is comparing apples and oranges.

Also, while changing the ordinances was bad the main loss to the early Christian Church was the slow but inevitable loss of the keys of authority after the death of the apostles. Without them the ordinances have no power even if they are unchanged. An interesting comparison is imagine that in the modern church all 15 of the apostles died. What would happen? Well, the Presidents of the Seventy would take over presumably but so much would be lost. Those who held keys would still hold them but they would not be replaceable. Some ordinances could be done but others could not. Stake Presidents and Bishops could not be replaced. Eventually you have no leaders left with keys and Priesthood ordination itself would cease.

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is nice. Looking forward to reading it. But it does not for me address the concern that the LDS church did not address it. A paper by a BYU professor 30 years after the fact is not an official explanation from the church - despite the familial link.

The apostles generally do not share their reasoning and that paper does not have reasoning. It tries to lay out the facts. The main thing it gives is insights into how revelations of that kind are sought and received.

Jerry Ray · January 3, 2019

55 minutes ago, juliann said:

Giving you a virtual like point until you have enough posts to have a real one!

lol... that's very nice of you... thanks

The Nehor · January 3, 2019

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems to me like this jettisons a basic premise of Mormonism that God was restoring very specifically important changes to rituals that had been corrupted over the years by Christian churches and that God revealed through Joseph the actual true and pure forms of these rituals in great specificity.

I only accepted that as a basic premise when I was a child. I no longer do so. And I believe the restoration of authority is much more important then specific ritual though, of course, some rituals were laid out with specificity in revelation such as the baptismal and sacrament prayers.

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content