Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

The point of the post was to say there hasn’t been explanation for recent changes like 1990 but there has been for other changes in biblical history.

So no explanations for anything in this dispensation, correct?

I look forward to reading the examples you have from the Bible.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I would really love to read the explanation for the 1990 temple ordinance changes.

You may never see an explanation for the 1990 changes directly from the Brethren, but those who were paying attention to the pressures on the Church at the time, know why. 

[Anijen]

Didn't Heavenly Father build a wall between the Terrestrial and the Celestial, to keep people out?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

You may never see an explanation for the 1990 changes directly from the Brethren, but those who were paying attention to the pressures on the Church at the time, know why. 

We all know why, just as we know why the ones in 1923 happened,  and the ones in 2005, and these ones.

The very things that were changed tell us why they happened.

And maybe they came from God, maybe they didn't.  But one thing is for sure.  Each and every time they changed because the members wanted the changes.  God gives us what we want.

[strappinglad]

Sometimes it is the members, yes, but there are also external pressures that, if allowed to fester , would put a serious obstacle in the greater work to be done. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Sometimes it is the members, yes, but there are also external pressures that, if allowed to fester , would put a serious obstacle in the greater work to be done. 

That is like saying we can stop people damming rivers by taking away the water.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is like saying we can stop people damming rivers by taking away the water.

It depends on if it is water or something less necessary to life...or eternal life. The debate with polygamy for example.  Was that something that had fulfilled its purpose and God removes to allow the faithful and his work to progress or was its removal him accepting the faithful weren’t too faithful after all or even a lie by our leaders to get the Church out of a tough spot

Edited January 11, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 1/6/2019 at 8:06 PM, Tacenda said:

Does anyone know how people are suppose to pay back tithing in order to receive their recommend? I was thinking if I were to somehow have just enough belief to want to go back how much money should I be scrounging up to do that. How does that work, or should I put this in the tithing thread?

You do not pay back tithing. 

You start again today as it is the first day of the rest of your life, and tell the Bishop you want to return to the temple.

He will tell you how long before you are able to reenter the temple.

[Stargazer]

[deleted]

Sorry, off topic. Just experimenting with keyboard...

Edited January 11, 2019 by Stargazer

[the narrator]

On 1/6/2019 at 9:06 PM, Tacenda said:

Does anyone know how people are suppose to pay back tithing in order to receive their recommend? I was thinking if I were to somehow have just enough belief to want to go back how much money should I be scrounging up to do that. How does that work, or should I put this in the tithing thread?

Joseph F. Smith:

Quote

We who have not paid our tithing in the past, and are therefore under obligations to the Lord, which we are not in position to discharge, the Lord requires that no longer at our hands, but will forgive us for the past if we will observe this law honestly in the future. That is generous and kind, and I feel grateful for it.

 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Fair enough.

What the Holy Spirit has taught me in the temple is that it is all a man-made attempt at reaching toward the divine.  That used to be troublesome to me but with the significant changes that have occurred now twice in my lifetime, the Brethren have confirmed the impression from the spirit and I am comforted with that.

I guess I was hoping that the Prophet and Apostles would give me a reason to conclude that I was wrong, that somehow some part of that ceremony had come from God but they don't seem to want or be able to do that.

What reason could they give that would trump a witness of the Holy Spirit?

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What reason could they give that would trump a witness of the Holy Spirit?

You're right.  There isn't one.  I guess it's just that if they are receiving revelation (akin to the way Joseph Smith received it), I'd love for that to be shared with us.  What I gather from all that they have told us lately is that the revelatory process was something like this:  the proposal was made for the changes to the temple ordinances, the FP and Q12 likely discussed it, prayed about it, made some adjustments, etc.  When consensus was reached among those 15 men it was deemed to be the will of the Lord and the changes were made.

[the narrator]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You're right.  There isn't one.  I guess it's just that if they are receiving revelation (akin to the way Joseph Smith received it), I'd love for that to be shared with us.  What I gather from all that they have told us lately is that the revelatory process was something like this:  the proposal was made for the changes to the temple ordinances, the FP and Q12 likely discussed it, prayed about it, made some adjustments, etc.  When consensus was reached among those 15 men it was deemed to be the will of the Lord and the changes were made.

I think the way Joseph received revelation was more akin to how anyone else receives it today. He just was more comfortable with phrasing his impressions in the first-person voice of God (similar to how you might see a televangelist do it today). The problem is that we have a built up a long tradition of Joseph's revelations being more unique and others, so Church leaders are in a bit of a bind now. If they say that the revelation was a process of listening to concerns/complaints, researching, discussing, praying, and feeling good about it, then they end up describing a process of revelation no different than that espoused by leaders of any Christian denomination.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think the way Joseph received revelation was more akin to how anyone else receives it today. He just was more comfortable with phrasing his impressions in the first-person voice of God (similar to how you might see a televangelist do it today). The problem is that we have a built up a long tradition of Joseph's revelations being more unique and others, so Church leaders are in a bit of a bind now. If they say that the revelation was a process of listening to concerns/complaints, researching, discussing, praying, and feeling good about it, then they end up describing a process of revelation no different than that espoused by leaders of any Christian denomination.

Were this not so, there would be no converts. They don't have to even be Christian. Moroni 10:4-5 applies to all.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I think the way Joseph received revelation was more akin to how anyone else receives it today. He just was more comfortable with phrasing his impressions in the first-person voice of God (similar to how you might see a televangelist do it today). The problem is that we have a built up a long tradition of Joseph's revelations being more unique and others, so Church leaders are in a bit of a bind now. If they say that the revelation was a process of listening to concerns/complaints, researching, discussing, praying, and feeling good about it, then they end up describing a process of revelation no different than that espoused by leaders of any Christian denomination.

Yes.  It's the same process known and used by each council at every level of the church.

While I agree that we've built a long tradition of Joseph's revelations being unique, we've also built a long tradition of the FP and Q12 being unique and different from other councils within the church ("prophet speaks to the Lord", Holy of Holies, etc).  Accepting that the prophet and apostles function in about the same way as my local ward council was an important facet of rebuilding my faith.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You're right.  There isn't one.  I guess it's just that if they are receiving revelation (akin to the way Joseph Smith received it), I'd love for that to be shared with us.  What I gather from all that they have told us lately is that the revelatory process was something like this:  the proposal was made for the changes to the temple ordinances, the FP and Q12 likely discussed it, prayed about it, made some adjustments, etc.  When consensus was reached among those 15 men it was deemed to be the will of the Lord and the changes were made.

If you go to the temple and listen to the announcement at the beginning of the changed endowment, you'll learn a little more information on how they received the revelation that hasn't been shared here.  It wasn't just a matter of prayer and consensus.  

I'm surprised that you believe you can discern how the changes came about without going to the temple and experiencing them.  There's information available to you in the temple. I hope you'll be able to take advantage of that and go soon.   

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  It's the same process known and used by each council at every level of the church.

While I agree that we've built a long tradition of Joseph's revelations being unique, we've also built a long tradition of the FP and Q12 being unique and different from other councils within the church ("prophet speaks to the Lord", Holy of Holies, etc).  Accepting that the prophet and apostles function in about the same way as my local ward council was an important facet of rebuilding my faith.

I wasn't going to make that point explicit, but yeah. I think this is why Packer called the Proclamation on the Family a revelation some years ago, as that came about from a process just like that. And I wonder if that description in his talk was soon changed because it didn't align with tradition of revelation among the leaders being something different. Much of The Brethren's authority is grounded in the implied myth of their epistemically privileged/unique revelation, so pulling back the curtain on that can simultaneously be a threat to authority, balm for those like you, and a cause for faith crises.

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You're right.  There isn't one.  I guess it's just that if they are receiving revelation (akin to the way Joseph Smith received it), I'd love for that to be shared with us.  What I gather from all that they have told us lately is that the revelatory process was something like this:  the proposal was made for the changes to the temple ordinances, the FP and Q12 likely discussed it, prayed about it, made some adjustments, etc.  When consensus was reached among those 15 men it was deemed to be the will of the Lord and the changes were made.

If you go to the temple and listen to the announcement at the beginning of the changed endowment, you'll learn a little more information on how they received the revelation that hasn't been shared here.  It wasn't just a matter of prayer and consensus.  

I'm surprised that you believe you can discern how the changes came about without going to the temple and experiencing them.  There's information available to you in the temple. I hope you'll be able to take advantage of that and go soon.   

I've known about the change for several months, and how Rockpond described it is precisely how it came about.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I've known about the change for several months, and how Rockpond described it is precisely how it came about.

I’m sure you’ll understand why I’m going to take “the brethren are lying about how the changes came to be” with a grain of salt. 

[teddyaware]

13 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Sometimes it is the members, yes, but there are also external pressures that, if allowed to fester , would put a serious obstacle in the greater work to be done. 

This gets to the crux of the matter. From what I understand, today’s pervasive feminist culture has even made its way into the Church, especially among the younger college educated members. And I’ve read it’s for this reason that many female members were attending the temple merely out of a sense of duty, but all the while they were quietly feeling annoyed and even bitter about it because,, at least in their minds, they perceived they were being treated like subjected second class citizens in the kingdom of God. So the leaders of the Church were inspired to find a way to make the feminist influenced sisters, who are still largely valiant, feel better about how God viewes them without discarding the absolutely essential elements of the endowment.

I believe that in some future day, when the saints are less carnally minded and less influenced by the wisdom of Babylon, the Lord will restore much, if not all, of that which has been taken away from the endowment. The problem is that, at least for the time being, the leaders had to find a way to make the endowment a less trying and negative experience for many of the current and future temple attendees without having to resort to what what would appear to be virtually forcing harder to digest sacred things down the throats of those who are not spiritually prepared to receive them.

In accordance to the law of diminishing returns, the previous order was inflicting more harm than good because sacred things can be very destructive if not handled and disseminated with great care. This very real and sacred verity is explained many times throughout the scriptures. And if it’s any comfort to the stalwarts, this is precisely what happened when the practice of polygamy and the pre-1990 endowment were withdrawn. And can any of the disappointed stalwarts not admit to themselves that by hiding these sacred things the Church has been able to move forward much more dynamically throughout the world?

If the proper degree of care is not employed, the dogged maintenance of sacred things, when it is not wise and prudent to do so, could virtually stop the progress of the kingdom of God. Sacred things have to be handled with great delicacy and wisdom. The old line stalwarts who bristle at the changes need to understand what’s going on and just move on in the knowledge that the prophecies are going to be fulfilled.

Edited January 11, 2019 by teddyaware

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure you’ll understand why I’m going to take “the brethren are lying about how the changes came to be” with a grain of salt. 

Who said anything about lying?

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you go to the temple and listen to the announcement at the beginning of the changed endowment, you'll learn a little more information on how they received the revelation that hasn't been shared here.  It wasn't just a matter of prayer and consensus.  

I'm surprised that you believe you can discern how the changes came about without going to the temple and experiencing them.  There's information available to you in the temple. I hope you'll be able to take advantage of that and go soon.   

I was speaking generally of the temple ceremony and of changes that have occurred in my endowed lifetime (I went before the 1990 changes), not specifically to these changes. 

The temple is spiritually difficult for me and is generally not an uplifting experience but I do still attend several times per year.  I’m sure I’ll get there soon to personally witness these latest changes. 

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

From what I understand, today’s pervasive feminist culture has even made its way into the Church,

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

Who said anything about lying?

Rockpond’s explanation of how the changes came about is different than the first presidency’s explanation given in the temple. 

The only way for the changes to have come about exactly as rockpond said is if the first presidency is lying. 

 

[the narrator]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Rockpond’s explanation of how the changes came about is different than the first presidency’s explanation given in the temple. 

The only way for the changes to have come about exactly as rockpond said is if the first presidency is lying. 

 

The first presidency said that it came by revelation. How does that contradict what Rockpond said?