Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the rejoinder to this is that they're converted only in part since only part was given.

This is the position that is driving me out of Mormonism.  LDS believe that Christ saves us more than others because we have the authority?  Where in Christ's teachings does he tell us that conversion to him requires authority?

The atonement is His, and I believe he will save all who accept his atonement!  I am not arrogant enough to think that my membership makes me have a "whole conversion" while there are many, many better men than me out there who are not on the membership records of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints who are way more converted to Christ than I am.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, halconero said:

"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." - Brigham Young

After pondering over some things last night, this quote came to mind. I found value in the way things were presented before. I think I would find value in the older means and ways of presentation. I will continue to find value now. That said, I sincerely believe that if I were to stand by the Saints of previous years at the gateway to Heaven, each of us would be enabled to give the angels who stand as sentinels the same necessary components without variation. That has not changed.

Besides what Brigham Young said I think the most important elements of the endowment ordinance are the promises we make to God. Everything else is just a vehicle to teach us the importance of those promises and the teaching parts can change and be revised according to the needs and readiness of the members at any point in time.  

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But temple language has the same imprimatur as baptism and sacrament prayers.  The ordinance workers are required to recite the wording with exactness and if they mess up to repeat it again, just like for a baptism or sacrament prayer.  

As far as I am aware the temple ordinance was not dictated in a written revelation the way the other prayers were.

If the wording isn't explicitly important, then why do our practices support the importance of very specific wording?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The only chapter about incorrect baptism in the Book of Mormon is Moroni 8 and it was about baptizing small children and how it was an abomination. I do not believe there is anything about sprinkling.

The ordinances were changed too. Yet even if they were word perfect they would not work without Priesthood keys. If the wording was the only important element we would have had to recognize ordinances done by the then-RLDS Church.

So the form of the ritual (baptizing young children) was the problem that the BoM describes, without any emphasis on authority specifically. 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You are dead on - all christian faiths certainly have this and other magical beliefs.  But, that doesn't mean that all magical beliefs are true.

True.  I just don't think plausibility is a good way to judge whether something is true or not. 

Conversely, it doesn't mean that all "magical" beliefs are false either. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, halconero said:

"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell." - Brigham Young

After pondering over some things last night, this quote came to mind. I found value in the way things were presented before. I think I would find value in the older means and ways of presentation. I will continue to find value now. That said, I sincerely believe that if I were to stand by the Saints of previous years at the gateway to Heaven, each of us would be enabled to give the angels who stand as sentinels the same necessary components without variation. That has not changed.

This is how I feel as well..... the ordinances are the same. Only the presentation has changed

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

True.  I just don't think plausibility is a good way to judge whether something is true or not. 

I sat on a jury once.  The defendant’s explaination behind his car accident associated with an extremely high blood alcohol level was highly implausible.  Possible, but implausible. We found him guilty.

I think plausibility is essential (but not exclusive) to making a judgement of whether something is true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jerry Ray said:

My testimony stands... I may be out of the loop and that's by my own choice not to look for inequity in others. I can't spend a minute of my time worrying about things I can't 

Can't spend a minute worried about abused kids.  Check.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, it depends upon what happens during the actual process of ascent to judgment. There's a strong case to be made that the endowment we have now is a preparatory endowment just like the washing and anointings are preparatory. You are endowed to become something not as something. The is common in the ancient near east, I should add. Often a king is prepared ritually to become a king but that's different from the actual coronation ceremony. Likewise while we're prepared to ascend to meet God and pass by the angels, clearly the ceremony is not the same as doing so. If we're given signs and tokens in the endowment (as stated by Young and frequently repeated in Church manuals and books) then it's not clear if the actual ascent will use such tokens or give us new ones as we ascend.

There's a very strong case to be made that the masonic tokens are mere placeholders. Likewise the clothing can be seen as symbolic of the glory one has in the ascent. (This is explicit in many ancient texts such as the Ascension of Isaiah

I agree 100%. Placeholder. I like that term.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the endowment as a vehicle is a good analogy.  There has always been a certain amount of elasticity about revelations and teachings in the Church.  You can always find a quote to fit your needs about things shouldn't change or that they change all the time.  I believe Brigham Young said he would rather follow a living prophet than a dead prophet.  I think he also said that he would take the words of the living oracles over the writings in all the books.  I also realize that Joseph Smith was the founding prophet and we rely on his vision, but just as he translated texts, modern prophets are translating his ideas into the medium of our time.  I am going to try and go to the temple tonite, but it sounds like I will like the changes.  I certainly believe that President Nelson is a prophet.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, changed said:

Can't spend a minute worried about abused kids.  Check.

Exactly... I'm 64 yrs old. I'm dying of cancer. I'm not going to spend my time worrying about something I can't control. 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Jerry Ray said:

Exactly... I'm 64 yrs old. I'm dying of cancer. I'm not going to spend my time worrying about something I can't control. 

I would think the closer you are to death, the more concerned you would be about finding the truth of your faith.... ignorance leads to continued abuse.  

Poster removed

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Bluebell - I am not picking on your post in particular, but want to respond to all who have found peace in the teachings that the man acts the head, and/or that women have covenanted to hearken unto their husbands is somehow explainable as equal somehow.  That position is problematic for me.

First, as @YJacket points out, there is clear biblical precedent for women being subject to men.  In both the old and new testaments, the subject is pretty clear.

Second, there are many, many teachings by early LDS church leaders that clearly underline the difference in hierarchy between men and women.  Brigham Young exacerbated this issue, but Joseph Smith made some strong statements as well: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835)

Must we accept the new testament and the teachings of the early LDS church as the correct will of God?  Not necessarily.  BUT, it is impossible to ignore or gloss over the fact that this has been clearly taught.  It strikes me as wishful thinking to believe that all along, these clearly sexist (I use that word as pragmatically as possible here) teachings were just misunderstood, and that all along they were teaching that men and women are equal partners.

I agree the precedent is there.  So--speaking only for myself--when confronted with things like this I try to think, how do I understand what God wants me to know from this, believing as I do that God is not a respecter of persons and that men and women are equal in His sight?  Where is the line between what He taught and what the writers of the bible passed on in this verse?

I don't have a problem with the concept that women are asked to submit to their husbands in the same way that their husbands must submit to Christ.   That kind of submission (explained more in Mosiah 3:19) leads to the same end, for both men and women.  It doesn't require more from the wife than it does from the husband. 

Having said that though, I don't think this concept of submission is what is recorded in the bible.  I think that the teachings in the bible are deliberately sexist because men in those societies did believe that they were better than women so it makes sense that they would interpret doctrine or teachings through that lens.  I'm guessing that probably spilled over into the temple ceremony as well.  But I do believe that the teachings in the bible are based on real teachings from God, and I don't believe the original teachings, as they came from God, were 'clearly sexist'.  

I don't consider trying to distinguish between what God has taught and the imperfect (sometimes sexist) way that it is passed on to be a problematic position.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Please help me understand why we covenant to live the law of chastity in the temple?  No one can enter the temple without already living the law of chastity - so why spend the time re-covenanting to do something when everyone there is already living this higher law? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, changed said:

I would think the closer you are to death, the more concerned you would be about finding the truth of your faith.... ignorance leads to continued abuse.  

I'm glad that you can post what you "would think" ... so can I. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, it depends upon what happens during the actual process of ascent to judgment. There's a strong case to be made that the endowment we have now is a preparatory endowment just like the washing and anointings are preparatory. You are endowed to become something not as something. The is common in the ancient near east, I should add. Often a king is prepared ritually to become a king but that's different from the actual coronation ceremony. Likewise while we're prepared to ascend to meet God and pass by the angels, clearly the ceremony is not the same as doing so. If we're given signs and tokens in the endowment (as stated by Young and frequently repeated in Church manuals and books) then it's not clear if the actual ascent will use such tokens or give us new ones as we ascend.

There's a very strong case to be made that the masonic tokens are mere placeholders. Likewise the clothing can be seen as symbolic of the glory one has in the ascent. (This is explicit in many ancient texts such as the Ascension of Isaiah

 Now this I can get on board with. I had always had that idea in my head but I wasn’t sure how to articulate it, I think others like Hugh Nibley seemed to share in this idea.

It makes sense too considering that the knowledge we’re given in the temple can be easily accessed off YouTube, even the list of Names rotated day-to-day is uploaded. If it’s ALL a shadow of what’s to come then, while it may be sacred, just possessing the knowledge will do you no good unless you’ve lived up to your covenants and to God. Then you Get the real tokens etc. 

The New Name is already a placeholder, why not all of it! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well, it depends upon what happens during the actual process of ascent to judgment. There's a strong case to be made that the endowment we have now is a preparatory endowment just like the washing and anointings are preparatory. You are endowed to become something not as something. The is common in the ancient near east, I should add. Often a king is prepared ritually to become a king but that's different from the actual coronation ceremony. Likewise while we're prepared to ascend to meet God and pass by the angels, clearly the ceremony is not the same as doing so. If we're given signs and tokens in the endowment (as stated by Young and frequently repeated in Church manuals and books) then it's not clear if the actual ascent will use such tokens or give us new ones as we ascend.

There's a very strong case to be made that the masonic tokens are mere placeholders. Likewise the clothing can be seen as symbolic of the glory one has in the ascent. (This is explicit in many ancient texts such as the Ascension of Isaiah

I'm trying to be careful with the sacred nature of the endowment, but why do you think tokens are tied to the 3x enforcement of "never revealing"?  Considering the need for member missionary work today, why not a 3x covenant to publish the good news of the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people?  To be a light unto the world, to believe in Christ and share with others the living waters gushing forth from your belly of revelation?  

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very curious to know if there have been any changes to the veil ceremony before a couple is married.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This may be true, but generations of Masons will be able to give (at least) some of the same components.

An asinine and irrelevant comment.

Part of the presentation of these ordinances is explaining their purprose and connecting them to principles of exalation and salvation. Without that, I doubt any un-unendowed Mason would be able to give the same component in the correct time or place.

We are beginning to remove posters. Watch your language.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I would be very curious to know if there have been any changes to the veil ceremony before a couple is married.

I was speaking with a temple sealer yesterday.... he says the ceremony wording has changed and gives a much warmer feeling to the ordinance. Sorry, I don't have any details

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I would be very curious to know if there have been any changes to the veil ceremony before a couple is married.

Yeah I’m curious if anyone on here is a temple worker that would know. We don’t perform them for the dead so they’re not as common, but I’d be curious. 

Share this post


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

I don't have a problem with the concept that women are asked to submit to their husbands in the same way that their husbands must submit to Christ.   That kind of submission (explained more in Mosiah 3:19) leads to the same end, for both men and women.  It doesn't require more from the wife than it does from the husband. 

Having said that though, I don't think this concept of submission is what is recorded in the bible.  I think that the teachings in the bible are deliberately sexist because men in those societies did believe that they were better than women so it makes sense that they would interpret doctrine or teachings through that lens.  I'm guessing that probably spilled over into the temple ceremony as well.  But I do believe that the teachings in the bible are based on real teachings from God, and I don't believe the original teachings, as they came from God, were 'clearly sexist'. 

I think there's two issues here. First clearly a lot of this is Biblical - particularly in the writings of Paul. We can (and perhaps in large measure should) say that Paul is often sexist here and reflecting extremely sexist culture. That was almost certainly amplified by Roman action which moved a lot of independent Jewish farmers and herders off their lands and into extreme poverty. That in turn increased certain patriarchal structures. If those are mere cultural trappings - and corrupt and problematic cultural trappings at that - then they should be removed.

That said, clearly Protestants with a sola scripture attitude against Catholic tradition would look at such texts and deem them important to follow. The default position of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, was to grant scripture a huge authority. Perhaps not quite the way Protestants did, but they all came out of the Protestant tradition and tended to grant the Bible huge authority. I'd argue more than was perhaps wise - particularly given their ignorance of the historic context leading them to be persuaded by very bad readings of scripture. (Here thinking of Brigham's appropriation of southern apologetic over racial issues in Genesis) It is quite understandable though. Typically it took a lot for God to get Joseph and Brigham to listen when something went against the cultural interpretation of the Bible - even if the new practice could be found in the Bible.

The second issue is that how people interpret these things is itself often tied to sexist readings with the underlying text or practice being far less sexist than it first appears. Consider veils. Veils are often seen as sexist yet one could argue that the parallel there is more Moses' veiling himself (Ex 34:33-352 Cor 3:13-16) and that the issue is Eve as hero of the narrative rather Eve as second class figure. (Not saying that's the case - just that a strong case can and has been made for this reading) Likewise the parallel with husbands can and perhaps ought be taken not in terms of leadership or power but the inverse. That is the husband is, like Jesus, to be the greatest servant of all. (The washing of feet being an example of that) So rather than telling husbands to lead and dominant in a sexist fashion it's actually telling them the opposite and to be better listeners and servants.

However if something is being culturally misinterpreted then it doesn't particularly matter what the intent is. People will miss the intent and just get the way culture would interpret things. You saw that with say the masonic curses or with the old resurrection of Hirum Abiff ritual that was in the endowment until 1990.

8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm trying to be careful with the sacred nature of the endowment, but why do you think tokens are tied to the 3x enforcement of "never revealing"?  Considering the need for member missionary work today, why not a 3x covenant to publish the good news of the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people?  To be a light unto the world, to believe in Christ and share with others the living waters gushing forth from your belly of revelation?  

Not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean the details of the speech, I'd say part of that is a trapping of masonic ritual that Brigham clearly copied. Second it's wrapped up in the masonic focus on secrecy of such things. But finally I'd say it gets at the common argument that God will only reveal to us more things if he can trust that we won't share them before the world. Joseph was explicit in making that connection.

I'd say charity and missionary work get a ton of focus - especially since those are things we can talk about openly. However people are frequently saying that revelation has ceased or other such things. Typically (IMO) if they aren't receiving them it's because they're not showing themselves able. As I've often said, you get GAs in contexts where they're confident things can be said in confidence they'll tell you a whole lot more. Even the texts people point to from the 19th century often were things never intended to be shared with the world. 

 

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, the narrator said:

But even the understanding of "keys" has changed. The contemporary view of keys as some sort of metaphysical and transferable token of authority did not originate with Joseph Smith. For Joseph, "keys" referred to knowledge. It wasn't until after the death of Joseph that we start to see keys as some sort of metaphysical thing.

I agree.  We have to expand the understanding of keys for sure.   1)  keys as seer stones, 2)  keys to the ministry of angels,  3)  keys of discernment, 4)  keys to the mysteries, 5)  keys of power etc pertain to both male and female. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's two issues here. First clearly a lot of this is Biblical - particularly in the writings of Paul. We can (and perhaps in large measure should) say that Paul is often sexist here and reflecting extremely sexist culture. That was almost certainly amplified by Roman action which moved a lot of independent Jewish farmers and herders off their lands and into extreme poverty. That in turn increased certain patriarchal structures. If those are mere cultural trappings - and corrupt and problematic cultural trappings at that - then they should be removed.

That said, clearly Protestants with a sola scripture attitude against Catholic tradition would look at such texts and deem them important to follow. The default position of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, was to grant scripture a huge authority. Perhaps not quite the way Protestants did, but they all came out of the Protestant tradition and tended to grant the Bible huge authority. I'd argue more than was perhaps wise - particularly given their ignorance of the historic context leading them to be persuaded by very bad readings of scripture. (Here thinking of Brigham's appropriation of southern apologetic over racial issues in Genesis) It is quite understandable though. Typically it took a lot for God to get Joseph and Brigham to listen when something went against the cultural interpretation of the Bible - even if the new practice could be found in the Bible.

The second issue is that how people interpret these things is itself often tied to sexist readings with the underlying text or practice being far less sexist than it first appears. Consider veils. Veils are often seen as sexist yet one could argue that the parallel there is more Moses' veiling himself (Ex 34:33-352 Cor 3:13-16) and that the issue is Eve as hero of the narrative rather Eve as second class figure. (Not saying that's the case - just that a strong case can and has been made for this reading) Likewise the parallel with husbands can and perhaps ought be taken not in terms of leadership or power but the inverse. That is the husband is, like Jesus, to be the greatest servant of all. (The washing of feet being an example of that) So rather than telling husbands to lead and dominant in a sexist fashion it's actually telling them the opposite and to be better listeners and servants.

However if something is being culturally misinterpreted then it doesn't particularly matter what the intent is. People will miss the intent and just get the way culture would interpret things. You saw that with say the masonic curses or with the old resurrection of Hirum Abiff ritual that was in the endowment until 1990.

Exactly (I've always viewed the veiling in the temple to be something similar to what you said about Eve being the hero).  And the bolded part mirrors what I said earlier about how our cultural baggage and societal views on being in charge keeps us from understanding being 'the head' of something in the way that Christ wants us to understand it.

  • Like 2

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? 
×