Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

I wonder who the fellow at LDSHQ is who:

-monitors Alonzo Gaskill's Facebook feed

-is aware of all the secrets LDS leadership wants kept from the public

-contacts Alonzo and asks him to remove it within a period of hours

That would be one well-oiled, highly-organized, controlling organization!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, halconero said:

Side note, this is a good way to understand the priesthood generally. Note that the only ordinances where 3 priesthood holders are required are also the ones done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Other ordinances may have more than one person participate, but only require one to represent the Saviour (in whose name the ordinance is done).

Baptism?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes 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.

I think sustaining apostles and prophets as they act in the authority of their calling is entailed in the covenants we do make.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is another confirmation that changes have been made. I do not necessarily agree with much of this blog post. I mean, if these changes have been and it makes it less problematic for a lot of women, I am happy. Can;t we just be happy sometimes? https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/the-burden-of-temple-changes-on-women/

Thanks for posting.

One interesting concept from the article is that if we fail to recognize the change, or worse, if we can't even acknowledge there was a change, then women who have been hurt by the "old way" of temple worship will be left wondering if their hurt was ever justified. The old will be forgotten, brushed under the rug. Some will be left feeling that what was reality never really happened and therefore their hurt wasn't real or justified.

For those wondering- that's a good argument that silence about these kinds of significant changes actually amounts to what could be considered institutional gaslighting.

ETA- on the other hand, talking about the changes and the reasons for the changes would be a great teaching moment for the church. Correct wrong ideas that were caused by the previous language/actions in the temple. Ignoring the changes and staying quiet is a HUGE missed opportunity for the church. Hopefully they will talk about it and teach about why the changes were made, and correct any lingering misconceptions about doctrine that were formed because of the now partially defunct sexism of the temple

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for posting.

One interesting concept from the article is that if we fail to recognize the change, or worse, if we can't even acknowledge there was a change, then women who have been hurt by the "old way" of temple worship will be left wondering if their hurt was ever justified. The old will be forgotten, brushed under the rug. Some will be left feeling that what was reality never really happened and therefore their hurt wasn't real or justified.

For those wondering- that's a good argument that silence about these kinds of significant changes actually amounts to what could be considered institutional gaslighting.

What about women who are hurt by the "new way"?  Or is it only the "old way" that hurts?

And more to the point which way is the true way?  If you have an old covenant which covenants to spouse and a new covenant that covenants to God which one is the true covenant? 

Removing a covenant is just that, removing it.  But changing a covenant . . .well that is something else.

So is it more that the old way is the proper way and people in today's "enlightened" mindset can't handle the true covenant?  Or is is that the changed covenant is the proper covenant and that the old covenant was the wrong covenant?

Considering the JS broke tons of cultural and religious norms-I highly doubt that God would have instructed him in a "less" pure covenant when he instituted the endowment.  Considering how many social/religious norms he broke-he could have very, very easily made the old covenant like the new covenant.

Of course, I'd think those who are for homosexuality would be happy at this change-a small step towards homosexual marriages (homosexual marriages in the temple wouldn't make sense with Eve covenanting to Adam)-change that covenant and now with each spouse covenanting to God it makes it a whole lot easier for homosexual unions to occur.

Bank on it homosexual marriages in the Temple at some point . . .I find patterns in the Scriptures, Christ is the great Restorer-he can't restore a perfect Church.  He can only clean house when the house is filthy . . .

Edited by YJacket
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/28/2018 at 12:27 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I would ask you to think about it for a while.

If the reports on https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/the-burden-of-temple-changes-on-women/ end up being true, I am curious to know how you reconcile your one-time clear understanding (and testimony?) of the unbalanced covenanting, and the current disappearance of that imbalance.  Which of the endowment versions are closer to god's truth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for posting.

One interesting concept from the article is that if we fail to recognize the change, or worse, if we can't even acknowledge there was a change, then women who have been hurt by the "old way" of temple worship will be left wondering if their hurt was ever justified. The old will be forgotten, brushed under the rug. Some will be left feeling that what was reality never really happened and therefore their hurt wasn't real or justified.

For those wondering- that's a good argument that silence about these kinds of significant changes actually amounts to what could be considered institutional gaslighting.

ETA- on the other hand, talking about the changes and the reasons for the changes would be a great teaching moment for the church. Correct wrong ideas that were caused by the previous language/actions in the temple. Ignoring the changes and staying quiet is a HUGE missed opportunity for the church. Hopefully they will talk about it and teach about why the changes were made, and correct any lingering misconceptions about doctrine that were formed because of the now partially defunct sexism of the temple

I agree... but avoiding any discussion of this change they shut down the ability to discuss WHY it changed and the implications of that.

The FP is claiming revelation is behind this change.  Did the revelation happen to clarify why it was left that way for so long when so many of us knew that it was wrong?  Does this change undo the previous covenants that millions of women have already made?  Does it retroactively update?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for posting.

One interesting concept from the article is that if we fail to recognize the change, or worse, if we can't even acknowledge there was a change, then women who have been hurt by the "old way" of temple worship will be left wondering if their hurt was ever justified. The old will be forgotten, brushed under the rug. Some will be left feeling that what was reality never really happened and therefore their hurt wasn't real or justified.

For those wondering- that's a good argument that silence about these kinds of significant changes actually amounts to what could be considered institutional gaslighting.

I completely agree.  This is another example of the modus operandi for the church which is to make a change and then just move forward, and in fairness many other institutions employ this as well.  We're still waiting on a proper apology and acknowledgement towards African American's for all the institutional racism perpetuated over the years.  

What if the leaders of the church actually modeled the process of repentance and Godly sorrow at an organizational level, things that we preach are important for true repentance.   They could lead out on these things in healthy ways and it would be so refreshing and healing for so many people.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think sustaining apostles and prophets as they act in the authority of their calling is entailed in the covenants we do make.

This is such a reach!  Do you mean to communicate that you believe that the endowment covenants made in the temple and raising my hand in church to sustain someone carry equal weight?

Even if you do believe, how does 'sustain' mean 'obey?'

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, YJacket said:

What about women who are hurt by the "new way"?  Or is it only the "old way" that hurts?

Um...you totally missed the point.

Could women be hurt by the new way? I suppose, and I didn't say otherwise. But by pretending changes never happened and that things were always this way, it confuses/gaslights those who remember it another way.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree... but avoiding any discussion of this change they shut down the ability to discuss WHY it changed and the implications of that.

The FP is claiming revelation is behind this change.  Did the revelation happen to clarify why it was left that way for so long when so many of us knew that it was wrong?  Does this change undo the previous covenants that millions of women have already made?  Does it retroactively update?

 

I suspect (but hope to be proven wrong) that this change will be explained the same way 1978 OD2 was.  No explanation given, rather an expectation of gratitude.

That position may work when governmental policies are augmented, but fails when revealed policies are.  The former do not claim an eternal divine basis; the latter do.

Share this post


Link to post

According to AKA Newnamenoah

"The temple ceremonies change again. We shall return and report.
As you may have heard, I’m on probation for trespassing on the grounds of the Jordan River Temple (video coming soon) so I’m gonna avoid stepping foot on temple properties for a bit. However, there’s a rumor going around that there’s been a change to one of the temple ceremonies effective immediately. If this is true, it needs to be documented, preferably on video and preferably as soon as possible. I suspect any changes will probably be in the wording used in the women’s initiatory. I’d be surprised if it’s a more condensed version of the endowment. If they really wanted to shake things up they would announce that women can now lead temple prayer circles. I don’t think that will happen.
I’m looking for a few men and women willing to...assist me in documenting the new changes on video. Please contact me privately if interested. I will provide recording equipment and training. This is not a job offer and I am offering no compensation. There are certain states where the law prohibits recording without the consent of all parties. We will not be recording in those states. No laws will be violated. Although I may be able to provide temple recommends, it is preferred if you already have one of your own that hasn’t expired yet. Interested parties please PM, email or text me. I’m not hard to find." (Reddit post)

How pathetic it is to waste one's life being so obsessed with this. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...you totally missed the point.

Could women be hurt by the new way? I suppose, and I didn't say otherwise. But by pretending changes never happened and that things were always this way, it confuses/gaslights those who remember it another way.

Well I don't know if "pretending" is the right word.  Not advertising it would probably be a better word.  The Church doesn't advertise things like this.  Pretending, it didn't happen-well that will depend on what happens in the future.  That depends on what conversations happen in appropriate settings with regard to the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...you totally missed the point.

Could women be hurt by the new way? I suppose, and I didn't say otherwise. But by pretending changes never happened and that things were always this way, it confuses/gaslights those who remember it another way.

I agree some comment would be helpful. Maybe it is in the FP message inside the temple. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is another confirmation that changes have been made. I do not necessarily agree with much of this blog post. I mean, if these changes have been and it makes it less problematic for a lot of women, I am happy. Can;t we just be happy sometimes? https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/the-burden-of-temple-changes-on-women/

 

Did anyone by chance save the contents of this post? It appears BCC has taken down the post, likely because of a concern that the contents discuss temple ceremony wording.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely agree.  This is another example of the modus operandi for the church which is to make a change and then just move forward, and in fairness many other institutions employ this as well.  We're still waiting on a proper apology and acknowledgement towards African American's for all the institutional racism perpetuated over the years.  

What if the leaders of the church actually modeled the process of repentance and Godly sorrow at an organizational level, things that we preach are important for true repentance.   They could lead out on these things in healthy ways and it would be so refreshing and healing for so many people.  

Grant Palmer (may he rest in peace) once said that all he wants is for the church leadership to do what it asks us to do.  Confess, acknowledge error, and repent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Well I don't know if "pretending" is the right word.  Not advertising it would probably be a better word.  The Church doesn't advertise things like this.  Pretending, it didn't happen-well that will depend on what happens in the future.  That depends on what conversations happen in appropriate settings with regard to the changes.

No. This goes beyond "not advertising" the changes. IF it is true and there is an audio introduction that directs people NOT to talk about the changes or even that changes were made, then that is more akin to trying to pretend it never happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is another confirmation that changes have been made. I do not necessarily agree with much of this blog post. I mean, if these changes have been and it makes it less problematic for a lot of women, I am happy. Can;t we just be happy sometimes? https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/the-burden-of-temple-changes-on-women/

Kind of surprised BCC would run a post like that. After all they're usually running posts bemoaning elements of Mormon thought that aren't progressive. No knock on Steve mind you - just that there is a rather typical BCC styled post. This seems rather reactionary in a way I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with at T&S.

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. This goes beyond "not advertising" the changes. IF it is true and there is an audio introduction that directs people NOT to talk about the changes or even that changes were made, then that is more akin to trying to pretend it never happened.

Or they're just concerned that people are talking about the details of the temple too much.

19 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I suspect (but hope to be proven wrong) that this change will be explained the same way 1978 OD2 was.  No explanation given, rather an expectation of gratitude.

That position may work when governmental policies are augmented, but fails when revealed policies are.  The former do not claim an eternal divine basis; the latter do.

Not sure what you're looking for as an explanation. In this case if it's as reported, then it's akin to the 90's changes. It made people uncomfortable and were being interpreted in uncharitable ways. They prayed about what to do and God said change it. What else is there to say?

36 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I wonder who the fellow at LDSHQ is who:

-monitors Alonzo Gaskill's Facebook feed

-is aware of all the secrets LDS leadership wants kept from the public

-contacts Alonzo and asks him to remove it within a period of hours

That would be one well-oiled, highly-organized, controlling organization!

It's just as likely that Steve took it down either because he felt it was too reactionary or went into details too explicitly. As I said it was rather at odds with the typical stance of BCC relative to gender issues.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If the reports on https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/01/02/the-burden-of-temple-changes-on-women/ end up being true, I am curious to know how you reconcile your one-time clear understanding (and testimony?) of the unbalanced covenanting, and the current disappearance of that imbalance.  Which of the endowment versions are closer to god's truth?

Which endowment version is closer to God's truth? Whichever one is closer to Scripture.

The egalitarianism in modern marriage is nowhere supported in Scripture. The biblical role of men and women in marriage is found in scripture-especially in Ephasians (but it is found in other verses too).  So unless we get new scriptures (always a possibility) which detail at how the OT, NT, DC versions of the roles of men and women are wrong then the older version which has it's backing according to scripture and doctrine is closer to the truth. 

But very few people read scriptures these days, and if they do they twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean (the Paul was asexual, that David and Saul were in a homosexual relationship, that anything contrary to the modern view is just wrong, outdated, etc.).  A plain reading of the scriptures supports the old way and not the new way.

Share this post


Link to post

They did take it down.  I was on the site to look at whether someone had posted there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

There's a statement on Mormon Newsroom. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/temple-worship?fbclid=IwAR2EggNe8cZ0PegifVCiHxQ6EzDBrR5Pl-nIIQMIt3aW_nHNg-Se8W6buY8

Quote

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued the following statement:

"Whenever the Lord has had a people on the earth who will obey His word, they have been commanded to build temples. Scriptures document patterns of temple worship from the times of Adam and Eve, Moses, Solomon, Nephi, and others.

With the restoration of the gospel in these latter days, temple worship has also been restored to bless the lives of people across the world and on the other side of the veil as well.

Over these many centuries, details associated with temple work have been adjusted periodically, including language, methods of construction, communication, and record-keeping. Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to His servants.

A dedicated temple is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Its ordinances are sacred and are not discussed outside a holy temple."

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

How pathetic it is to waste one's life being so obsessed with this. 

Researchers have shown that the emotions of hate and love are neurologically very similar.  Just as some active, TBM members are obsessed with building their church, some of those on the other end of the spectrum can be just as obsessed with tearing down that same church.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. This goes beyond "not advertising" the changes. IF it is true and there is an audio introduction that directs people NOT to talk about the changes or even that changes were made, then that is more akin to trying to pretend it never happened.

Well it depends on what the instructions say-"don't talk about it at all", or "don't talk about it outside of the temple or to those who are not endowed".  Those are different things.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Kind of surprised BCC would run a post like that. After all they're usually running posts bemoaning elements of Mormon thought that aren't progressive. No knock on Steve mind you - just that there is a rather typical BCC styled post. This seems rather reactionary in a way I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with at T&S.

I get a "page no longer exists" message when I click on the link.

 

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? 
×