Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

Just now, SouthernMo said:

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.

Which is sad b/c the true goal isn't to "build a church" or "tear one down", the true goal is to be converted to Christ and to lead a proper life as a disciple of Christ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you SouthernMo. My link is still broken. While the BCC article does not explicitly list the changes, it gives me great hope that I'll soon be returning to endownment sessions. What a great day.

FWIW, I have not qualms about discussing temple covenants (or changes thereto). The temple forbids disclosure of specific signs and tokens; nothing else. The covenants in the temple are no more sacred than those outside the temple that we show to the world each week. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
46 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 would guess that the Brethren just didn't want people speculating about the changes outside of the temple.   The changes have already shown up on ex-mormon reddit so maybe they were trying to give people less of a chance to mock what they believe is sacred.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 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.

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

Ut oh!  Hmmm...  I thought the BCC post made some really important points.   Maybe its a perceived timing issue?   

We need to get past the unhealthy secrecy culture in this church.  I wonder if any of the parts that emphasize secrecy were removed from the ritual?  Wish that we could just talk openly about these things in respectful ways.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Thank you SouthernMo. My link is still broken. While the BCC article does not explicitly list the changes, it gives me great hope that I'll soon be returning to endownment sessions. What a great day.

FWIW, I have not qualms about discussing temple covenants (or changes thereto). The temple forbids disclosure of specific signs and tokens; nothing else. The covenants in the temple are no more sacred than those outside the temple that we show to the world each week. 

So you boycotted the temple over the old way? or am I misinterpreting.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, YJacket said:

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. 

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of service in the gospel - best communicated by Jesus washing the feet of the apostles. 

10 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

FWIW, I have not qualms about discussing temple covenants (or changes thereto). The temple forbids disclosure of specific signs and tokens; nothing else. The covenants in the temple are no more sacred than those outside the temple that we show to the world each week. 

I'm not sure that's true. If reports are true, then it would appear that the restrictions have been made much more explicitly going beyond signs and tokens with these changes. Although that was how most I think interpreted it in the past.

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Thanks, now we're talking, this makes sense to release a statement.  

Quote

The First Presidency has issued a statement on temples on Jan. 2, 2019:

"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."

It doesn't go into detail, which isn't surprising.  I don't like the "most holy of any place of worship on earth" statement.  Our temples are more holy than your temples kind of attitude doesn't play well.  

I'm wondering if this statement was prepared in advance, or just cobbled together quickly today to respond to the rumors.  I suspect the latter.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

From what I am seeing, everything that minimized women has been corrected, even to the point of giving Eve more to say. 

I will be waiting for the apologies by those who vilified women who dared to express the need and hope to be included as a full participant on their own.  NOT. 

What does this even mean?  Seriously? 

I swear the older I get the more I think people just like contention. .  .always got to have a fight, always got to have a cause to advocate for change, always have some "wrong" thing.

We could live in paradise and still someone would find some cause to get riled up about . .. just to do something. (sigh).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, well, well ...what?

They've acknowledge the changes (after we already knew) and used their statement to shut down any discussion of those changes.  Standard.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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.

 

Currently three priesthood holders are required to be present for a baptism. Note, we don't know the words Oliver and Joseph used to baptize each other. Things are always a bit wonky at the beginning of dispensations.

Side note, I find it odd that we (I'm guilty of this as well) use terms like "debunking." Maybe it's just my sensitivities, but it comes off as accusatory towards the other person's statement.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Witnesses in the endowment liturgy refer to Adam and Eve. Though you are correct in that the officiators represent a sort of Eve when exercising their duties in the temple. This becomes really clear in the live sessions wherein the order when bestowing ordinances is the main officiator representing someone, them giving the ordinance to Adam, Adam to Eve, and then Adam and Eve to everyone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

well, well, well ...what?

They've acknowledge the changes (after we already knew) and used their statement to shut down any discussion of those changes.  Standard.

people wanted a statement and they got it and now they aren't happy?! tsk tsk tsk!  of all things! I am not going to get upset about the statement!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship of service in the gospel - best communicated by Jesus washing the feet of the apostles. 

Christ washing the feet has so much meaning.  It's a fundamental misunderstanding of roles and relationships.  It's a misunderstanding of what a role is and how to play that role.

It's a misunderstanding about relationships-especially in marriage.  Having "equality" in marriage is such a flawed concept it is totally unworkable.  It's amazing to me, do people even think about what they say and what they mean or do they just spout it off.

Equal how?  Equal in duties-each person does 50% of the work?  Well what work?  Do we need to line out each aspect of a job and split it 50/50.  I do laundry this week, you do laundry next week? Equal in decisions? I make this decision-you make the next decision? 

Decision making requires there to be a head-it requires someone to actually be the decider. Someone to actually "lead"-lead means out in front, you can't lead if your not out in front being an example making decisions, etc. And good luck having 2 leaders . . .what happens when the leaders disagree.  Yes in a perfect world we'd all make decision like the Q12-but marriage is probably the hardest long-term thing that an individual will do in their life. 

It is guaranteed in marriage you will have serious conflicts, serious issues, serious problems.  And I have found personally that the absolute best way for a marriage to succeed long term with minimal conflict is to have a biblicaly based marriage based upon the scriptures found in the NT/OT/DC.  The more that in my marriage we conform to those standards, the smoother, easier, and happier our marriage becomes. I look at my marriage 5 years ago when it didn't conform to it and now when it does and it's night and day; from a point where I wasn't sure if my marriage would even survive to where it's pretty strong.

So that the Church is removing that framework in the Temple is quite sad, b/c it will just mean that more marriages will break up and it will mean more public shame, humiliation and calls of bigotry, misogyny, etc. for individuals who find the path to happiness in marriage as based upon the Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptism?

And the sealing.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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?

An explanation to this question would be nice: What does the LDS church teach about what God wants women's role to be in relationship to men?

The church leadership answers to this question has evolved over the years (to put it mildly).  One can write off (with some difficulty) those differences as the opinions of men in the context of the prejudices of their times.

But, we are taught that the temple is where we can go to find the purest doctrine.  It is where we make the most sacred covenants, not with man, but with God.  So - a change here carries far more weight than a remark in a sermon.  On December 31, women were COVENANTING to hearken unto their husbands, and on January 1 they are not!  We are talking about the very identities of womanhood!

For the FP to just proverbially shrug their shoulders and say 'hey, it's changed, let's not talk about it' seems ignorant of the whipsaw of self-identification that women will likely go through.  It's been 40 years since OD2, and there is still a lack of peace in the parts of many black members (and me, and I was born post-1978).

I want to be very clear - it is way too soon to be judgmental of how 'the brethren' are handling this change.  Early indicators aren't yet satisfactory to me, but I'll give it time before I get too judgmental.  I'm only making the point that I think we can do better than we did in 1978 around such a key issue that we have claimed as a deep part of revelation and identity in the eyes of God.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, sjdawg said:

I don't know what anyone gained from that statement.  It contained essentially no information.

Correct.  It didn't even acknowledge the change.  But it did say to not talk about the ordinances outside of the temple. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I don't know what anyone gained from that statement.  It contained essentially no information.

it mentioned "adjustments" 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So you boycotted the temple over the old way? or am I misinterpreting.

I participated in the temple ceremonies that contained covenants I believe are appropriate for my marriage and family. I was not vocal at all and did not boycott anything, but I could not in good conscience participate in the endownment and sealings. I continued to take my children and youth groups for baptisms and to witness sealing ceremonies. I've been praying for this day to arrive (as has my wife, who continued to participate in all temple ceremonies, but did not share my same level of concern). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

people wanted a statement and they got it and now they aren't happy?! tsk tsk tsk!  of all things! I am not going to get upset about the statement!

It's not a statement about the changes.  It's just a statement about the temple.  It's what they'll point journalists to when they are asked about the changes and say "no comment".

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 1

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? 
×