Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Duncan said:

well, in JSH 1:73 it says the Holy Ghost was present and "fell upon" Oliver and the Holy Ghost is a messenger from God so I take it they were all present.  

That's not the issue.  I'm debunking the claim that three priesthood holders are required to be present for a baptism to be accepted.

 

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

church leadership of today or Church leadership in ad 36? that's why we are commanded to study!

Church leadership today.

Good point about the commandment to study.  Perhaps it's not the role of the church to give us the tools we need readily.  We may need to dig deeper than just opening a manual, or visiting lds.org

I need to dig into resources to find older transcripts of the endowment to pray and see if there has been an apostasy from the original revelation.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

That's not the issue.  I'm debunking the claim that three priesthood holders are required to be present for a baptism to be accepted.

 

you don't think God the Father and the Holy Ghost hold the priesthood? 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was thinking about this the other day as I heard a wild rumor that there would be an easing up on the word of wisdom (getting rid of the prohibition on coffee and Tea)

It got me to wondering, if the change took effect on January 1st someone could drink coffee and tea on January first and be in compliance with the word of wisdom and qualify for a temple recommend. But what if the person drank coffee on Dec 31st, making them non-compliant to the WoW. Are they automatically worthy on Jan 1, or would they be required to repent prior to receiving a TR?

(This would be similar to someone not living the law of chastity, but then getting married- they would be required to repent first even though the behavior is now sanctioned)

From my perspective, they would need to repent first, because the sin was disobedience to the commandments of God (and the breaking of covenants, one could say) and not drinking coffee or tea.  The prohibition could be removed but the disobedience and broken covenants would still remain.

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Duncan said:

you don't think God the Father and the Holy Ghost hold the priesthood? 

Were they there?  In person?  If that's your logic, why 'require' any mortal witnesses at all today?  Why not just have one baptizer, and claim that God and Jesus were there?

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Interesting.  I think that the leaders of Christ's original church believed they were authorized to make changes (and they might have been if we take Matt 16:18 as a conferral of authority).  How can one recognize unauthorized changes?

Only through the Spirit I would think.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Who were the two witnesses at Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's baptism?  They did not have any as far as the record goes.

Interestingly, in the endowment there are also witnesses exercising the priesthood as witnesses. They are female.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Were they there?  In person?  If that's your logic, why 'require' any mortal witnesses at all today?  Why not just have one baptizer, and claim that God and Jesus were there?

was I there?! I don't know! but you asked what the record said and I said that the Holy Ghost "fell upon" Oliver and the Holy Ghost is sent by God

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These would be great changes, thanks for sharing, I sure hope this happens.  

I don't see why the church wouldn't make some kind of announcement.  Its really the only way to partially try and control the message these days is to lead out with the original message.  

I also find it odd that they wouldn't make some kind of announcement, especially considering the vast amount of speculation going on.

I've been told by a friend that there is a brief audio recording from the 1st Presidency prior to the beginning of the endowment. It sounds like it's probably a temporary deal but it talks about how changes are sometimes necessary and that they are inspired. And then, if my friend is correct, it says something about how there should not be any mention to others about any changes that have been made (or even that changes have been made). This makes ZERO sense to me. IF it is true, then the church is setting itself up for more accusations of secrecy, and to what end. The info will be available. Why tell people not to share something that isn't a part of a covenant not to share. That part is pretty frustrating to me.

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I also find it odd that they wouldn't make some kind of announcement, especially considering the vast amount of speculation going on.

I've been told by a friend that there is a brief audio recording from the 1st Presidency prior to the beginning of the endowment. It sounds like it's probably a temporary deal but it talks about how changes are sometimes necessary and that they are inspired. And then, if my friend is correct, it says something about how there should not be any mention to others about any changes that have been made (or even that changes have been made). This makes ZERO sense to me. IF it is true, then the church is setting itself up for more accusations of secrecy, and to what end. The info will be available. Why tell people not to share something that isn't a part of a covenant not to share. That part is pretty frustrating to me.

it's only Noon ish! maybe they'll say something this week?

Edited January 2, 2019 by Duncan

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I also find it odd that they wouldn't make some kind of announcement, especially considering the vast amount of speculation going on.

I've been told by a friend that there is a brief audio recording from the 1st Presidency prior to the beginning of the endowment. It sounds like it's probably a temporary deal but it talks about how changes are sometimes necessary and that they are inspired. And then, if my friend is correct, it says something about how there should not be any mention to others about any changes that have been made (or even that changes have been made). This makes ZERO sense to me. IF it is true, then the church is setting itself up for more accusations of secrecy, and to what end. The info will be available. Why tell people not to share something that isn't a part of a covenant not to share. That part is pretty frustrating to me.

It appears, if the above is true, that your friend went out and immediately violated the instruction and that you are aggravating the matter by noising about what he was asked not to mention outside the temple in the first place.

 

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

was I there?! I don't know! but you asked what the record said and I said that the Holy Ghost "fell upon" Oliver and the Holy Ghost is sent by God

I know what the record says.  I'm just making sure I'm not missing anything before being so brash and bold to say that the idea that god requires two priesthood holder witnesses at a baptism is not true unless we reject the validity of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's baptism.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears, if the above is true, that your friend went out and immediately violated the instruction and that you are aggravating the matter by noising about what he was asked not to mention outside the temple in the first place.

 

I would also mean that the person first quoted in this thread about the changes at the Nauvoo temple also violated the instructions.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would also mean that the person first quoted in this thread about the changes at the Nauvoo temple also violated the instructions.

That person that, now famously, announced the changes in the Nauvoo temple (without specifics) was BYU Religion Professor Alonzo Gaskill.  It seems odd that he would have violated an instruction from the FP given at the beginning of the endowment.  But, he may have missed the instruction or forgotten and this would explain why he later removed the post.

Edited January 2, 2019 by rockpond
clarity

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I know what the record says.  I'm just making sure I'm not missing anything before being so brash and bold to say that the idea that god requires two priesthood holder witnesses at a baptism is not true unless we reject the validity of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's baptism.

but to me the record says they were there and they hold the priesthood so I'd say Joseph and Oliver's baptism was valid

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Duncan said:

but to me the record says they were there and they hold the priesthood so I'd say Joseph and Oliver's baptism was valid

Ok. So I ask again. Why can’t god and Jesus come to baptisms today?  Why need mortal witnesses at all?

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I also find it odd that they wouldn't make some kind of announcement, especially considering the vast amount of speculation going on.

I've been told by a friend that there is a brief audio recording from the 1st Presidency prior to the beginning of the endowment. It sounds like it's probably a temporary deal but it talks about how changes are sometimes necessary and that they are inspired. And then, if my friend is correct, it says something about how there should not be any mention to others about any changes that have been made (or even that changes have been made). This makes ZERO sense to me. IF it is true, then the church is setting itself up for more accusations of secrecy, and to what end. The info will be available. Why tell people not to share something that isn't a part of a covenant not to share. That part is pretty frustrating to me.

I totally agree with you, this is just common sense in our current information age.  But we've seen plenty of examples where they bungle these things, the most infamous in recent years being the Nov 2015 exclusion policy.  There are other times where they seem to be very aware of current events and respond fairly quickly, like in the aftermath of the Charlottesville Virginia demonstrations, and the statements about white culture.  Those happened fairly quickly.  For a large organization with the resources of the church, they really have no excuse for not handling these things much more consistently in a professional way. 

[rockpond]

Reports are coming in...

New video for endowment.  Shorter, simpler, and more equality given to women.

Out of respect for the temple, I'm going to leave it at that.

Edited January 2, 2019 by rockpond

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That person that, now famously, announced the changes in the Nauvoo temple (without specifics) was BYU Religion Professor Alonzo Gaskill.  It seems odd that he would have violated an instruction from the FP given at the beginning of the endowment.  But, he may have missed the instruction or forgotten and this would explain why he later removed the post.

Also, people might assume they should not mention the specific changes but that  saying there are changes is not in violation of this instruction. Without having first hand knowledge it is hard to know the actual wording and what it entails. People misinterpret things all the time. My sister in Utah has heard these rumors of changes through her facebook feed. I doubt her neighbors are posting publicly about changes if they were specifically counseled not to say there were changes. From her, I gathered changes have been implemented today in Utah temples. My temple worker in-laws who don't work until Friday in Idaho, have heard nothing about any of this.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears, if the above is true, that your friend went out and immediately violated the instruction and that you are aggravating the matter by noising about what he was asked not to mention outside the temple in the first place.

 

If I tell you something and then instruct you not to tell anyone, are you obligated to follow my instruction? Have you covenanted to be perfectly obedient to my wishes?

Of course not. And I don't think we've covenanted to be perfectly obedient to any man or group.

Telling others to keep secrets is highly problematic. And what is the purpose? Is it another loyalty test? Do they really think they can control information? I can't believe the brethren really think they have that much control. IF they do, perhaps they need a good eye-opening.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Reports are coming in...

New video for endowment.  Shorter, simpler, and more equality given to women.

Out of respect for the temple, I'm going to leave it at that.

Now I'm really intrigued.  Not enough to want to go participate in an endowment myself though.  I'm looking forward to hearing more about the specific changes, and perhaps someday it will change enough for me to want to participate again, who knows.... 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I tell you something and then instruct you not to tell anyone, are you obligated to follow my instruction? Have you covenanted to be perfectly obedient to my wishes?

Of course not. And I don't think we've covenanted to be perfectly obedient to any man or group.

Telling others to keep secrets is highly problematic. And what is the purpose? Is it another loyalty test? Do they really think they can control information? I can't believe the brethren really think they have that much control. IF they do, perhaps they need a good eye-opening.

Maybe temple workers need to sign NDAs now?  

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok. So I ask again. Why can’t god and Jesus come to baptisms today?  Why need mortal witnesses at all?

maybe they are at a tupperware party? remember the witnesses make sure it's down correctly and the baptism is done in the name of God, the Son and the Holy Ghost

Edited January 2, 2019 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe temple workers need to sign NDAs now?  

I assume there will be fewer people participating on this thread since the topic of changes is now verboten.   IF one can't talk about what is forbidden, they really shouldn't be listening either, right?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would also mean that the person first quoted in this thread about the changes at the Nauvoo temple also violated the instructions.

True. I wonder if that's why the FB post was taken down.