Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

There is. Those who are baptized by proper authority.

Round and round we go...

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Round and round we go...

2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is. Those who are baptized by proper authority.

And confirmed right?  ;)

Baptism without confirmation...member or not?

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

The way I see It, the way it is communicated was adjusted to our day.  The last go around, the words were the same, but dramatic emphasis deepened the meaning and clarified the contribution of some characters.  That's what prophets who speak in the name of the Lord can do.  

It's not the changes in the theatrical presentation I have issues with.

It's the changes to the covenants and priesthood elements like signs, tokens, penalties, the robes, the garments, the initiatory, the veil ceremony, keywords, and on, and on.   They can change whether Adam says something or Eve does.  That's just presentation.  There is a ton of presentation elements that are dramatic emphasis and a means of communication.  

But just take the sacred method of prayer alone - first we drop penalties, then keywords, now the veils.  (Next up the signs or united prayer?) Do we still think that what we have is what Joseph said was needed to "pray and get an answer" (ie open the channel of true revelation)?

Or the veil ceremony?  Or the initiatory?

Really, we are no longer endowed with anything because the knowledge restored in the endowment has been mostly taken out.  The knowledge is not the creation story or the fall of Adam and Eve.  That's all in scripture already.  Anyone can read it.

The endowment IS the covenants, signs, tokens, penalties, garments, names, keywords, method of prayer and correct method of passing through the veil.  Take those away one by one and eventually there is no endowment.  Just a play of the Genesis/Moses account.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I went to the temple this morning. I could not find a parking spot at first the temple was so full. I assumed there were several weddings but that was not the case (at least not more then usual). Some people were parking where they should not have parked. I do wonder if the Temple had to have the cars of members towed. I have never seen this before. Luckily on my second trip around the parking lot I found a spot.

I felt at peace and just barely missed a session so I read a lot of Isaiah in the chapel and the clarity of he book has rarely been so transparent. There were so many people in the chapel that they had to leave some of the later arrivals for the next session despite setting up extra chairs in the room. I was bathed in the Spirit as I entered. I did have one concern based on what I was told had changed and assumed that one section would be cut. That one section had very strong meeting to me despite how I could see it being problematically understood. I was saddened when I found that it was gone and almost wept at the loss of something I felt was so inspiring and comforting and had such sweet meaning if understood correctly. Then I came across a small addition that had the same secret symbolism in an equally subtle way and did cry a few silent tears. It was as if God made sure that that piece was retained just for me even if the apostles did not know of that little insight (though they might have, I have no idea).

In my experience nothing was lost and I offered a prayer of gratitude. It was sweet to me and I disagree entirely with those who believe something was lost or that the ordinance itself was weakened or cheapened. Please do not take seriously the heming and hawing coming mostly from those who were already on the fringes. The apostles are still leading us to eternal life and, more importantly, God is guiding them.

I had planned to attend two sessions but decided to leave after one due to the crowding of the temple to allow others to have this opportunity.

A wonderful experience. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And confirmed right?  ;)

Baptism without confirmation...member or not?

A membership record is created at baptism. You are then confirmed a member. You cannot confirm something that is not already true.

Edit: That being said, one without the other is very incomplete and it is rare for anyone in the modern LDS faith to receive one ordinance but not the other.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A membership record is created baptism. You are then confirmed a member. You cannot confirm something that is not already true.

Fair enough.  Makes sense I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I appreciate your honesty in expressing that you never prayed about the BoM. Nor of receiving any kind of spiritual witness of the book compared to others, I've always felt the same.

I genuinely believe that if I ever did offer such a prayer, the response would be deafening silence.

Quote

I guess I haven't been able to grasp what everyone else has, not saying this is your experience.

No, the Book of Mormon was central to my conversion to Christ and has played the central role in my life as a disciple ever since.

Quote

But you made me feel a bit better that I'm not a total loss.

Two things I know: (a) no one is a 'total loss'; (b) Heavenly Father has an infinite number of ways to reach His children, including those (like me and you) who don't fit the mould.

Quote

I lost my ability to pray in faith but do still try to kneel and pray but get kind of angry too. 

Oh, I'm the master of angry prayers. I shared a personal experience a couple of years ago, but I have dozens and dozens more. I've learnt that being real is a prerequisite to getting God's attention -- I think this is at least partially what is meant by the phrase 'real intent' -- and that He really doesn't mind engaging in a wrestle with me ... as long as I'm prepared to be owned (and corrected!) in the end.

Quote

Thanks again for sharing Hamba!

Any time! :good:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Do we still think that what we have is what Joseph said was needed to "pray and get an answer" (ie open the channel of true revelation)?

Based on extensive personal experience, yes, absolutely! You keep taking your apparent lack of true revelation and extrapolating it to every other member, prophets and apostles included. Why do you do that?

I can't comment on what your recent experiences in the temple may have been, but I certainly know what mine have been.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

The 1 Corinthians scripture is important.

It is far more confusing to me to justify that The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is god’s one and only church than to accept that those who follow the teachings of Christ are members of his “Church” even though they don’t have their names on a list in SLC.

Put differently: It’s simpler to say that all those who follow Christ are members of His Church.

Example: Is Moses was a Mormon?  He’s not on the records of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (as far as I know).  Not sure he was ever even baptized?  Growing up in Pharoah’s court? My guess is Christ considers him part of His Church.

Our definition of a church can go beyond a US registered 501(c)(3).  I’m not sure Christ sees his church the way we see LDS, Inc.

Aren't you being rather silly and dismissive about whether Moses is a Mormon? He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, do you doubt that? Whether his name is on some list in SLC or some other place, it is certainly written on the Master List.

Your perception seems to be clouded by the extraneous trappings made necessary by the societal and governmental environment that the Church must operate in. You are making the classic mistake of confusing the surface with the substance.

For example, after the first missionaries were sent there, the LDS Church in Nigeria had initial difficulties with governmental regulation because one of the many independent "LDS" churches had registered as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", making it legally impossible for the Church to operate under its actual name. Until that was resolved, the legality of the Church was in doubt and subject to possible adverse governmental action.

As for who is a member of His church, as distinguished from who is a Christian, why was it felt necessary to re-baptize those certain brethren who may not have been baptized by someone with authority, if by believing they were already Christians? (Acts 19:1-6) They apparently needed to be added to a list in Ephesus, because if it were merely a matter of "believing" then they would have just given them the gift of the Holy Ghost and not worried about who baptized them.

The fact of the matter is this: the Church must operate in the real world,  not some idealized state of being that does not exist. And I'm quite certain that the Lord knows what his Church is, and who belongs to it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You are making the classic mistake of confusing the surface with the substance.

Perhaps. But what is the substance of being a member of Christ’s Church?  Please - tell me, because I see real flaws in every explanation i have been given. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps. But what is the substance of being a member of Christ’s Church?  Please - tell me, because I see real flaws in every explanation i have been given. 

They who are baptized by authority from God who are doers of the word and not hearers only.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

They who are baptized by authority from God who are doers of the word and not hearers only.

Ok - So again - I go back to my question - who baptized Moses if we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok - So again - I go back to my question - who baptized Moses if we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

Why not Jethro?  He held priesthood and ordained Moses.  Perhaps he baptized him also.

D&C 84:6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok - So again - I go back to my question - who baptized Moses if we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

Probably Jethro. We do not have his records. We are only responsible for the records of this dispensation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably Jethro. We do not have his records. We are only responsible for the records of this dispensation.

Maybe - but do you maintain that someone must have baptized Moses because we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Ok - So again - I go back to my question - who baptized Moses if we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

"28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
            29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

1 Cor. 15:28-29

Baptism for the dead refers to Temple ordinances for those who didn't have it done earlier.  It's required, as was indicated earlier by Stargazer in Acts 19:1-6. I see you didn't respond to that one.  So you probably won't respond to this:

1 Peter 3:

"18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
            19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
            20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Christ preached to people who had died without hearing the Good News since the flood.  Why?      

6" For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:6

So you see the Scriptures do give us reasons for our faith.  And we defend your right to worship as you please.  

10 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Round and round we go...

You asked a question I don't believe you answered-- "what is the substance of being a member of Christ’s Church?  Please - tell me, because I see real flaws in every explanation i have been given."

I'm interested in your perfect answer with no flaws that also complies with God's Word, some of which is quoted above.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

"28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
            29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

1 Cor. 15:28-29

Baptism for the dead refers to Temple ordinances for those who didn't have it done earlier.  It's required, as was indicated earlier by Stargazer in Acts 19:1-6. I see you didn't respond to that one.  So you probably won't respond to this:

1 Peter 3:

"18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
            19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
            20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Christ preached to people who had died without hearing the Good News since the flood.  Why?      

6" For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." 1 Peter 4:6

So you see the Scriptures do give us reasons for our faith.  And we defend your right to worship as you please.  

You asked a question I don't believe you answered-- "what is the substance of being a member of Christ’s Church?  Please - tell me, because I see real flaws in every explanation i have been given."

I'm interested in your perfect answer with no flaws that also complies with God's Word, some of which is quoted above.  Thanks!

I’m sorry - I am still unclear on your direct answer. Who baptized Moses?  You quote scriptures about work done in the afterlife, but I don’t see a direct answer to my question.

Why did Christ preach to the people who had not heard the good news?  My answer: because Christ teaches good, and he wants everyone to become good and better. I hope Christ teaches me after I die and am in the spirit world, even though I have been baptized, endowed, and go to church!  I have much to learn. Understanding and accepting Christ doesn’t seem to be a binary position.

My answer is not perfect - which is why I ask you. You seem confident in your position. Please answer me, rather than turning my question back on me - because I fully admit that I do not have a perfect answer. I only reject answers given as ‘perfect’ that clearly have holes.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe - but do you maintain that someone must have baptized Moses because we consider him a member of Christ’s Church?

Probably. Unless the ordinance was different in that day. I doubt it was.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably. Unless the ordinance was different in that day. I doubt it was.

My understanding of the history of baptism is that baptism was not viewed as a gate (LDS term), or part of a conversion or joining process until Christ taught it to Nicodemus in John 3:5.  Why else would Nicodemus (a prominent Jew) be so confused by this new teaching? The temple at the time had a basin for washing.  Mormons like to call this a baptismal font.

Previous to Christ, all historical and scriptural references hinting at that ordinance were for purification and washing - that happened as often as one liked (and visited the temple).

So, I highly doubt that if you asked Moses if he were baptized, he would agree. Again, there is no record I’m aware of historical or scriptural that indicates that baptism was an ordinance for joining Christ’s Church. But maybe I’m wrong.  Records are incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My understanding of the history of baptism is that baptism was not viewed as a gate (LDS term), or part of a conversion or joining process until Christ taught it to Nicodemus in John 3:5.  Why else would Nicodemus (a prominent Jew) be so confused by this new teaching? The temple at the time had a basin for washing.  Mormons like to call this a baptismal font.

Previous to Christ, all historical and scriptural references hinting at that ordinance were for purification and washing - that happened as often as one liked (and visited the temple).

So, I highly doubt that if you asked Moses if he were baptized, he would agree. Again, there is no record I’m aware of historical or scriptural that indicates that baptism was an ordinance for joining Christ’s Church. But maybe I’m wrong.  Records are incomplete.

Yeah, I suspect he was but perhaps the ordinance was different.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My understanding of the history of baptism is that baptism was not viewed as a gate (LDS term), or part of a conversion or joining process until Christ taught it to Nicodemus in John 3:5.  Why else would Nicodemus (a prominent Jew) be so confused by this new teaching? The temple at the time had a basin for washing.  Mormons like to call this a baptismal font.

Previous to Christ, all historical and scriptural references hinting at that ordinance were for purification and washing - that happened as often as one liked (and visited the temple).

So, I highly doubt that if you asked Moses if he were baptized, he would agree. Again, there is no record I’m aware of historical or scriptural that indicates that baptism was an ordinance for joining Christ’s Church. But maybe I’m wrong.  Records are incomplete.

It's a Mikveh"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh

https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+ceremonial+washing+tub&safe=strict&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyorGM29nfAhUMKqwKHYYHCNQQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=6MRtUR7rO2ShGM

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My understanding of the history of baptism is that baptism was not viewed as a gate (LDS term), or part of a conversion or joining process until Christ taught it to Nicodemus in John 3:5.  Why else would Nicodemus (a prominent Jew) be so confused by this new teaching? The temple at the time had a basin for washing.  Mormons like to call this a baptismal font.

Previous to Christ, all historical and scriptural references hinting at that ordinance were for purification and washing - that happened as often as one liked (and visited the temple).

So, I highly doubt that if you asked Moses if he were baptized, he would agree. Again, there is no record I’m aware of historical or scriptural that indicates that baptism was an ordinance for joining Christ’s Church. But maybe I’m wrong.  Records are incomplete.

Moses 6:64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

 

I mean I’m not sure Moses was baptized, though I assume he was, Adam was for sure baptized in the way we understand (though the spirit of the Lord did it instead of a mortal it would seem). Considering the Ordinances of the Gospel never change, I assume He kept it the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Considering the Ordinances of the Gospel never change

You’re saying this sarcastically, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re saying this sarcastically, right?

Yes and no. The core ordinances don’t change. There has always been baptism, the reception of the Holy Ghost, priesthood ordinantion, and the “endowment” in some form. The Law of Moses didn’t chuck these ordinances out the window, it just added more to it so the people would be worked into remberance. 

 

The problem we face now is whether changes to the endowment/sealings are just the presentation or if something was changed in error. 

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? 
×