Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure I understand...

All morality is based on feelings.

Do you know it is wrong to kill?

Where is your evidence other than feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Usually it's just liberals upset both by changes and not changes (or oddly today both simultaneously). 

What I see is a few, who might be described as conservative, that are upset that we are changing the temple covenants.  And I see others (the larger group), who might be described as liberals, that are happy for the changes but upset by the lack of explanation and prohibition on discussion.

The lack (so far) of any authoritative explanation of the changes and/or sharing of the revelation from which they were derived seems to set the church up for more gaslighting of members in the future.

We silently change things (like the horrific penalties from pre-1990) and those, like me, who still struggle through the temple because of them can't really have any meaningful discussion.  The same will happen with this if it isn't addressed in a more meaningful way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I asked you about your post:

I am asking you for a reference from the Book of Mormon in which the Father clearly spells out what is required for salvation and that authority is needed.

And I provided it twice.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, the narrator said:

It would be interesting to know if The Brethren felt okay making the change because of historical research that seems to show that Brigham Young introduced the language making women subordinate to their husbands in response to Young's belief that Joseph's death was partly due to Emma's rejection of polygamy. Ben Park wrote a good thread on it yesterday that you can read here.

Also, I was just told about these words by Brigham Young in a book we are editing, from the High Priest Quorum Record on March 9, 1945:

 

CR 1000 1_f0001_00096.jpg

Wow, lots to think about here. BY, not a favorite. :(

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All morality is based on feelings.

Do you know it is wrong to kill?

Where is your evidence other than feelings?

See my answer to @Calm

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

And I provided it twice.

I must be daft because in the verses you shared with me, only 2 Nephi 31:11&15 seem to be the voice of God the father.  And those verses - those words of God the Father - don’t indicate that authority is needed (as you claim the words of Elohim do). They underline the importance of being baptized in the name of Christ.

The other verses are filled in by Christ’s words and Nephi’s.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

That would be my question too, I understand errors creeping in sometimes..but 174 years? Seems odd.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just read on another board someone said that someone in the know said this change has been in the works for a year. And that there had been a survey sent to women asking about their feelings in the temple. And that temple attendance by women has dwindled. And in their opinion this change is for the upcoming generations, I would agree. IMO, like all the other changes in the temple, it's propelled by the regular members and their answers on the surveys that have been given. 

 

I was hoping it wouldn’t be surveys.Maybe I don’t understand exactly what happened, but Surveys don’t seem to be the common pattern for the last major dispensations..

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Because most don't interpret it in terms of Brigham Young's understanding but in terms of the similar scriptures which tends to undermine Brigham Young's comments above.

Clark,

That is why I prefaced my remark with "if it's true" as in "if its true they are reacting to historical research about Brigham Young."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, lots to think about here. BY, not a favorite. :(

Agreed. Wasn't the priesthood ban started under him. Now this....

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Prof said:

Agreed. Wasn't the priesthood ban started under him. Now this....

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

Astray is an interesting term.  Who defines what it means and how do we know these things led us astray.

Someone once said we get the prophets and revelations we deserve and desire.  The older I get the more I believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Racist priesthood and temple policy. 

Adam-God. 

Incorrect temple covenant for women?

I guess the “won’t lead us astray” doctrine didn’t apply to him. 

Nope. That statement came much later in 1890.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Which, if true, raises the question of why it took 174 years and historical research to effect the changes instead of it occurring through a revelatory process in a much quicker time frame?

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I must be daft because in the verses you shared with me, only 2 Nephi 31:11&15 seem to be the voice of God the father.  And those verses - those words of God the Father - don’t indicate that authority is needed (as you claim the words of Elohim do). They underline the importance of being baptized in the name of Christ.

The other verses are filled in by Christ’s words and Nephi’s.

I would suggest you read them again, also verse 20 which has more words of the Father, and apply some common sense, and add some knowledge from other scriptures that have been shown you about baptism and authority, and then contemplate the Savior’s words about the words and the doctrine of the Father in that chapter and in 3 Nephi 11 and 12, and put it all together.

It’s very clear that the commandment to be baptized by one having authority in order to be saved originated with the Father, both in His own words and in His words as transmitted by His Son which is what I claim.

Quote

Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name--hear ye him.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Nope. That statement came much later in 1890.

That means it wasn't true at that time then right?  That's apparently how gospel truth works.

Whatever the current combination of the 15 prophets agree on in the only gospel truth.  Until a few of them pass on and the next 15 disagree.

Truth is always relative, situational, and progressive.  Nothing is absolutely unalterably true.

I think I'm getting it now...

Let's ordain women, do away with garments, decanonize D&C 132 and the Book of Abraham, stop honoring dead prophets, eliminate offices in the priesthood and make them church callings, end recommend interviews, make tithing an optional donation only for helping the poor, anything goes.  All we need is for the 15 to agree on it.

Onwards to Zion!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

The ability to change a worldwide Church from central headquarters relatively quickly and easily comes with the internet (no more multiple phone calls or using postal services; write one email that automatically gets sent to all destinations at once; no more costly and lengthy publishing of manuals process).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Astray is an interesting term.  Who defines what it means and how do we know these things led us astray.

Someone once said we get the prophets and revelations we deserve and desire.  The older I get the more I believe it.

It does seem that we wanted a prophet who would do many of these things... so many of the changes we are getting today are ones that members have been talking about for years and decades... shorter church, fewer meetings, shortening the endowment by cutting out much of the repetition, and ending sexism in temple ceremonies.  I can see that "deserve and desire" statement applying to us today.

But, did the saints in the latter half of the 19th century deserve and desire a prophet who would teach them false doctrine?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

In another thread it has been discussed how there are soon to be changes church-wide that will require that people think in terms that may require considerable change in outlook and apparently advance to a new  standard.  @Hamba Tuhan has brought up something that Elder Bednar said that suggested that most strongly.  For the first 174 years change was not required to be quicker, because we were apparently either not ready, or perhaps the world wasn't.  But perhaps circumstances in the world and in the kingdom of God have advanced to the point where quicker change has become necessary or perhaps possible, where previously it was not.

Having not yet seen the changes to the endowment presentation, I cannot say much in connection therewith, but the changes there may very well correspond to other initiatives, such as the hymnbook correlation that has been discussed, as well as ministering and the priesthood organizational changes.  I've been a member since 1966, and the pace of change seems to have picked up dramatically.  

This quote is currently in my signature but I'll highlight it here as it seems applicable to what you're saying above:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

 

Share this post


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

It does seem that we wanted a prophet who would do many of these things... so many of the changes we are getting today are ones that members have been talking about for years and decades... shorter church, fewer meetings, shortening the endowment by cutting out much of the repetition, and ending sexism in temple ceremonies.  I can see that "deserve and desire" statement applying to us today.

But, did the saints in the latter half of the 19th century deserve and desire a prophet who would teach them false doctrine?

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

Edited by JLHPROF
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What makes you think today's teachings contain no false doctrine?

Forget different religions. We have two centuries worth of Mormon generations all convinced they have the truth.  Until the next generation says they didn't.  Imagine which of our deeply held beliefs in the Church today will be called false doctrine by our grandchildren.

Agreed.

I don't think that today's teachings contain no false doctrine.  I'm quite certain they do contain false doctrine.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think the need for the all the sudden magnitude of changes has everything to do with the information age/internet.

I'm sure that's part of it.

But wouldn't the Lord be directing His church towards a greater end than merely keeping up with technology?  We live in a world of turmoil, and it's getting more and more in upheaval every day.  I think we're heading towards something quite amazing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This quote is currently in my signature but I'll highlight it here as it seems applicable to what you're saying above:

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

 

I think it's more than merely what he could not do that he is now free to do.  I think it has a lot to do with what he was held in reserve to do.  When Ezra Taft Benson became President of the Church, there were some who expected him to get down and serious with right-wing politics -- and were apparently bracing themselves.  But he didn't do that.  He did what he was apparently held in reserve to do, not what he was frustrated by being unable to do.  

  • 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? 
×