Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure I understand...

All morality is based on feelings.

Do you know it is wrong to kill?

Where is your evidence other than feelings?

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Usually it's just liberals upset both by changes and not changes (or oddly today both simultaneously). 

What I see is a few, who might be described as conservative, that are upset that we are changing the temple covenants.  And I see others (the larger group), who might be described as liberals, that are happy for the changes but upset by the lack of explanation and prohibition on discussion.

The lack (so far) of any authoritative explanation of the changes and/or sharing of the revelation from which they were derived seems to set the church up for more gaslighting of members in the future.

We silently change things (like the horrific penalties from pre-1990) and those, like me, who still struggle through the temple because of them can't really have any meaningful discussion.  The same will happen with this if it isn't addressed in a more meaningful way.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I asked you about your post:

I am asking you for a reference from the Book of Mormon in which the Father clearly spells out what is required for salvation and that authority is needed.

And I provided it twice.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

It would be interesting to know if The Brethren felt okay making the change because of historical research that seems to show that Brigham Young introduced the language making women subordinate to their husbands in response to Young's belief that Joseph's death was partly due to Emma's rejection of polygamy. Ben Park wrote a good thread on it yesterday that you can read here.

Also, I was just told about these words by Brigham Young in a book we are editing, from the High Priest Quorum Record on March 9, 1945:

 

Wow, lots to think about here. BY, not a favorite.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All morality is based on feelings.

Do you know it is wrong to kill?

Where is your evidence other than feelings?

See my answer to @Calm

[SouthernMo]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And I provided it twice.

I must be daft because in the verses you shared with me, only 2 Nephi 31:11&15 seem to be the voice of God the father.  And those verses - those words of God the Father - don’t indicate that authority is needed (as you claim the words of Elohim do). They underline the importance of being baptized in the name of Christ.

The other verses are filled in by Christ’s words and Nephi’s.

[SettingDogStar]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

That would be my question too, I understand errors creeping in sometimes..but 174 years? Seems odd.

[SettingDogStar]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just read on another board someone said that someone in the know said this change has been in the works for a year. And that there had been a survey sent to women asking about their feelings in the temple. And that temple attendance by women has dwindled. And in their opinion this change is for the upcoming generations, I would agree. IMO, like all the other changes in the temple, it's propelled by the regular members and their answers on the surveys that have been given. 

 

I was hoping it wouldn’t be surveys.Maybe I don’t understand exactly what happened, but Surveys don’t seem to be the common pattern for the last major dispensations..

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because most don't interpret it in terms of Brigham Young's understanding but in terms of the similar scriptures which tends to undermine Brigham Young's comments above.

Clark,

That is why I prefaced my remark with "if it's true" as in "if its true they are reacting to historical research about Brigham Young."

[Prof]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, lots to think about here. BY, not a favorite.

Agreed. Wasn't the priesthood ban started under him. Now this....

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Prof said:

Agreed. Wasn't the priesthood ban started under him. Now this....

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

Astray is an interesting term.  Who defines what it means and how do we know these things led us astray.

Someone once said we get the prophets and revelations we deserve and desire.  The older I get the more I believe it.

[SouthernMo]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

Nope. That statement came much later in 1890.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I must be daft because in the verses you shared with me, only 2 Nephi 31:11&15 seem to be the voice of God the father.  And those verses - those words of God the Father - don’t indicate that authority is needed (as you claim the words of Elohim do). They underline the importance of being baptized in the name of Christ.

The other verses are filled in by Christ’s words and Nephi’s.

I would suggest you read them again, also verse 20 which has more words of the Father, and apply some common sense, and add some knowledge from other scriptures that have been shown you about baptism and authority, and then contemplate the Savior’s words about the words and the doctrine of the Father in that chapter and in 3 Nephi 11 and 12, and put it all together.

It’s very clear that the commandment to be baptized by one having authority in order to be saved originated with the Father, both in His own words and in His words as transmitted by His Son which is what I claim.

Quote

Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name--hear ye him.

 

Edited January 5, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Nope. That statement came much later in 1890.

That means it wasn't true at that time then right?  That's apparently how gospel truth works.

Whatever the current combination of the 15 prophets agree on in the only gospel truth.  Until a few of them pass on and the next 15 disagree.

Truth is always relative, situational, and progressive.  Nothing is absolutely unalterably true.

I think I'm getting it now...

Let's ordain women, do away with garments, decanonize D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, stop honoring dead prophets, eliminate offices in the priesthood and make them church callings, end recommend interviews, make tithing an optional donation only for helping the poor, anything goes.  All we need is for the 15 to agree on it.

Onwards to Zion!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

The ability to change a worldwide Church from central headquarters relatively quickly and easily comes with the internet (no more multiple phone calls or using postal services; write one email that automatically gets sent to all destinations at once; no more costly and lengthy publishing of manuals process).

Edited January 5, 2019 by Calm

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Astray is an interesting term.  Who defines what it means and how do we know these things led us astray.

Someone once said we get the prophets and revelations we deserve and desire.  The older I get the more I believe it.

It does seem that we wanted a prophet who would do many of these things... so many of the changes we are getting today are ones that members have been talking about for years and decades... shorter church, fewer meetings, shortening the endowment by cutting out much of the repetition, and ending sexism in temple ceremonies.  I can see that "deserve and desire" statement applying to us today.

But, did the saints in the latter half of the 19th century deserve and desire a prophet who would teach them false doctrine?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

This quote is currently in my signature but I'll highlight it here as it seems applicable to what you're saying above:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It does seem that we wanted a prophet who would do many of these things... so many of the changes we are getting today are ones that members have been talking about for years and decades... shorter church, fewer meetings, shortening the endowment by cutting out much of the repetition, and ending sexism in temple ceremonies.  I can see that "deserve and desire" statement applying to us today.

But, did the saints in the latter half of the 19th century deserve and desire a prophet who would teach them false doctrine?

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

Edited January 5, 2019 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

Agreed.

I don't think that today's teachings contain no false doctrine.  I'm quite certain they do contain false doctrine.

 

[Duncan]

I came across these these quotations that I thought were interesting,

"When the [Kirtland] Temple was built, the Lord did not see proper to reveal all the ordinances of the endowments such as we now understand. He revealed little by little. No rooms were prepared for washings;no special place prepared for the anointings, such as you understand, and as such you comprehend at this period of the history of the Church!" he later said in the same talk, "These same administrations in the Kirtland Temple were revealed little by little, corresponding with what  I have already been saying, that the Lord does not give the fulness at once, but imparts to us according to his own will and pleasure."Elder Orson Pratt, JD 19:15-16

Elder George A. Smith of the Twelve said in 1855, speaking also of the Kirtland Temple

"The Saints had a great many traditions which they had borrowed from their fathers, and laid the foundations, and built that Temple with great toil and suffering, compared with what we have now to endure. They got that building so far finished as to be dedicated; this was what the Lord wanted, He wished them to provide a place wherein He could reveal to the children of men those principles that will exalt them to eternal glory, and make them Saviors on mount Zion....

We were instructed to wash each other's feet, as an evidence that we had borne testimony of the truth of the Gospel to the world. We were taught to anoint each other's head with oil in the name of the Lord, as an ordinance of anointing. All these things were to be done in their time, place, and season. All this was plain and simple, yet some apostatized because there was not more of it, and others because there was too much.

On the evening after the dedication of the Temple, hundreds of the brethren received the ministering of angels, saw the light and personages of angels, and bore testimony of it. They spake in new tongues, and had a greater manifestation of the power of God than that described by Luke on the day of Pentecost. Yet a great portion of the persons who saw these manifestations, in a few years, and some of them in a few weeks, apostatized. If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle farther than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it. He tried at Jerusalem; He tried away back before the flood; He tried in the days of Moses; and He had tried, from time to time, to find a people to whom He could reveal the law of salvation, and He never could fully accomplish it; and He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey." JD 2:214-215

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

I'm sure that's part of it.

But wouldn't the Lord be directing His church towards a greater end than merely keeping up with technology?  We live in a world of turmoil, and it's getting more and more in upheaval every day.  I think we're heading towards something quite amazing.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This quote is currently in my signature but I'll highlight it here as it seems applicable to what you're saying above:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

 

I think it's more than merely what he could not do that he is now free to do.  I think it has a lot to do with what he was held in reserve to do.  When Ezra Taft Benson became President of the Church, there were some who expected him to get down and serious with right-wing politics -- and were apparently bracing themselves.  But he didn't do that.  He did what he was apparently held in reserve to do, not what he was frustrated by being unable to do.