Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by rockpond
clarity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

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 by rockpond
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.... 

Share this post


Link to post
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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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 by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
    • By nuclearfuels
      Was chatting at Scouts last night - RIP and good riddance BSA - with an expert on Russia.
      Asked him 'bout the announced Temple in Russia; he thinks St. Petersburg; I don't know as I dont' study that country much,,,
      He said it could be 10+ years away like when Kiev Temple was announced
      Curious as to if Church HQ's legal team advised President Nelson or Bishop Davies to not announce the Russia Temple until a location had been selected and approved.  
      Laughed at the response to the lawyers: Thank you for your advice.  This meeting is over.
      -
      Curious as to what steps are in place before a Temple is announced (site acquisition, govt permitting approval, etc.)?
      Also I'd like to attend the dedication but not sure who would sponsor my Visa as a US passport won't get you in Russia, especially not after their recent laws regarding foreigners proselytizing? 
×