Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I doubt it, it's like new laws aren't typically retroactive, so you would be held accountable to the light and knowledge you received, not what you could have received 

Interesting.  So those who took out their endowments prior to 1990 have a different set of covenants (and expectations) than those of us who took out endowments after 1990?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Interesting.  So those who took out their endowments prior to 1990 have a different set of covenants (and expectations) than those of us who took out endowments after 1990?

i'd imagine, especially if you died in 1991. besides of which you can't be held accountable for covenants you didn't make, only the ones you did make

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd imagine, especially if you died in 1991. besides of which you can't be held accountable for covenants you didn't make, only the ones you did make

Your position makes perfect logical sense to me.  But, it erodes my faith that the covenants made in the temple are important to God.  The covenants and liturgy seem to be dynamic, and I am forced to ask myself what of the covenants is really key?  What is unchanging?  What unlocks mysteries and the presence of God?  Or, is the point of covenants only to test our obedience to whomever dictates the current covenants (first presidency + 12)?

As LDS, we seem to have little qualm about condemning the changes that happened to the church after Christ established it as a gradual apostasy.  But, when we make changes to our core covenants and most sacred rituals in the restored church, we see it not as apostasy, but embrace it as evidence of a true and living church.

@JLHPROF - What do you think?  You've studied the changes in covenants today better than anyone I know.  What is the difference in the changes made in the original Church of Christ compared to the changes we make in the LDS Church today?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, readstoomuch said:

Went to the temple last Friday and it was the same ceremony I am used to.  Unless yesterday was the big change. It doesn’t seem to have happened.

Changes go into effect for the new year:  today for most temples.

Based on what has been shared, it seems that the changes give women a bit more equality.  That will be a nice change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The receiver IS Eloheim, with the worker being a proxy. Women would have to be able to be proxies for men then an vice versa

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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Changes go into effect for the new year:  today for most temples.

Based on what has been shared, it seems that the changes give women a bit more equality.  That will be a nice change.

I'll see if I can get to a session today (which might work better with my schedule this week) and see what's up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Your position makes perfect logical sense to me.  But, it erodes my faith that the covenants made in the temple are important to God.  The covenants and liturgy seem to be dynamic, and I am forced to ask myself what of the covenants is really key?  What is unchanging?  What unlocks mysteries and the presence of God?  Or, is the point of covenants only to test our obedience to whomever dictates the current covenants (first presidency + 12)?

As LDS, we seem to have little qualm about condemning the changes that happened to the church after Christ established it as a gradual apostasy.  But, when we make changes to our core covenants and most sacred rituals in the restored church, we see it not as apostasy, but embrace it as evidence of a true and living church.

@JLHPROF - What do you think?  You've studied the changes in covenants today better than anyone I know.  What is the difference in the changes made in the original Church of Christ compared to the changes we make in the LDS Church today?

I see it as changing or living versus getting rid of it altogether or changing the meaning, which I suspect happened in the early church

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes 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).

What ordinances require three priesthood holders?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes 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).

What about baptism?  It's done by just one priesthood holder but is done in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Your position makes perfect logical sense to me.  But, it erodes my faith that the covenants made in the temple are important to God.  The covenants and liturgy seem to be dynamic, and I am forced to ask myself what of the covenants is really key?  What is unchanging?  What unlocks mysteries and the presence of God?  Or, is the point of covenants only to test our obedience to whomever dictates the current covenants (first presidency + 12)?

As LDS, we seem to have little qualm about condemning the changes that happened to the church after Christ established it as a gradual apostasy.  But, when we make changes to our core covenants and most sacred rituals in the restored church, we see it not as apostasy, but embrace it as evidence of a true and living church.

@JLHPROF - What do you think?  You've studied the changes in covenants today better than anyone I know.  What is the difference in the changes made in the original Church of Christ compared to the changes we make in the LDS Church today?

I think our religion recognizes the difference between authorized changes and unauthorized changes.   Change is not the enemy, unauthorized change is.  It doesn't matter why a change occurs; the only thing that matters is whether or not God approved of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

What ordinances require three priesthood holders?

If you count the witnesses, baptism, sealing, & (confirmation in the temple). Am I forgetting any?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

I think our religion recognizes the difference between authorized changes and unauthorized changes.   Change is not the enemy, unauthorized change is.  It doesn't matter why a change occurs; the only thing that matters is whether or not God approved of it.

I was thinking about this the other day as I heard a wild rumor that there would be an easing up on the word of wisdom (getting rid of the prohibition on coffee and Tea)

It got me to wondering, if the change took effect on January 1st someone could drink coffee and tea on January first and be in compliance with the word of wisdom and qualify for a temple recommend. But what if the person drank coffee on Dec 31st, making them non-compliant to the WoW. Are they automatically worthy on Jan 1, or would they be required to repent prior to receiving a TR?

(This would be similar to someone not living the law of chastity, but then getting married- they would be required to repent first even though the behavior is now sanctioned)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you count the witnesses, baptism, sealing, & (confirmation in the temple). Am I forgetting any?

Ahhh... I forgot the witnesses.  Thanks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What about baptism?  It's done by just one priesthood holder but is done in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

and two witnesses

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I see it as changing or living versus getting rid of it altogether or changing the meaning, which I suspect happened in the early church

Sure - this is the point.  Most people share your paradigm in general.

But what is the tactical difference?  How would one recognize if the meanings of ordinances were changed today (which you believe to be a sign of apostasy - as in the original church)?

The restored LDS church has gotten rid of elements of the endowment in its relatively short history.

I highly doubt leaders of the original church wrung their hands and thought about how to change the meanings of ordinances - they were likely well-intentioned men who made what they felt were minor, insignificant changes to accommodate dynamic societal norms, increase comfort, or maybe 'repair' what they thought to be missing/broken.  Over the centuries, these changes understandably drift further and further from the original.

My fear is, we are doing the same.  What will the LDS endowment look like in another 185 years?  It's changed quite a bit since 1831!  How do we recognize (and avoid) apostasy in our ordinances?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What about baptism?  It's done by just one priesthood holder but is done in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

Baptism is not always done in the names of the three members of the Godhead.  Mosiah 18:13

"And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world."

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and two witnesses

Who were the two witnesses at Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's baptism?  They did not have any as far as the record goes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Sure - this is the point.  Most people share your paradigm in general.

But what is the tactical difference?  How would one recognize if the meanings of ordinances were changed today (which you believe to be a sign of apostasy - as in the original church)?

The restored LDS church has gotten rid of elements of the endowment in its relatively short history.

I highly doubt leaders of the original church wrung their hands and thought about how to change the meanings of ordinances - they were likely well-intentioned men who made what they felt were minor, insignificant changes to accommodate dynamic societal norms, increase comfort, or maybe 'repair' what they thought to be missing/broken.  Over the centuries, these changes understandably drift further and further from the original.

My fear is, we are doing the same.  What will the LDS endowment look like in another 185 years?  It's changed quite a bit since 1831!  How do we recognize (and avoid) apostasy in our ordinances?

what it will look like in 185 years is the leaders in 185 years issue, not me!  I think through reading the scriptures and leaders' words we can know what it is and what it's supposed to do, to determine the difference. I have a friend who is a DR. and he said in Medical School they learned the ideal so they detect what is the 'unreal", like, yeah that's not supposed to look like that or behave like that! I don't know if the leaders changed it so much as members and leaders die off and things got changed fairly quickly. I can totally see how an apostasy happened back then. Some months ago we were asked to help move someone and I said their name and time and where they currently lived, well myself and someone else had to explain it like 8 times before everyone got it, like listen your birdbrains!!!!!!!!!!!!! like how many tellings does it take!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think our religion recognizes the difference between authorized changes and unauthorized changes.   Change is not the enemy, unauthorized change is.  It doesn't matter why a change occurs; the only thing that matters is whether or not God approved of it.

Interesting.  I think that the leaders of Christ's original church believed they were authorized to make changes (and they might have been if we take Matt 16:18 as a conferral of authority).  How can one recognize unauthorized changes?

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Baptism is not always done in the names of the three members of the Godhead.  Mosiah 18:13

"And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world."

At least in this verse I see all three members of the Godhead at mentioned, though he doesn’t specifically say “in the name of..”. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think through reading the scriptures and leaders' words we can know what it is and what it's supposed to do, to determine the difference.

Challenge: we do not have easy access to the original endowment to see for ourselves the difference.  Church leadership tends not to be as open with these kinds of records.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Who were the two witnesses at Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's baptism?  They did not have any as far as the record goes.

well, in JSH 1:73 it says the Holy Ghost was present and "fell upon" Oliver and the Holy Ghost is a messenger from God so I take it they were all present.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Challenge: we do not have easy access to the original endowment to see for ourselves the difference.  Church leadership tends not to be as open with these kinds of records.  

church leadership of today or Church leadership in ad 36? that's why we are commanded to study!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The 2 changes I've heard by someone who claims to have gone to the temple yesterday in Nauvoo is that...

1- women no longer veil their face

2- women no longer covenant to hearken to their husbands

However, I'm hoping the church will release information about this. What do you think? Will the church make these changes known, or just wait for people to figure it out as they attend?

These would be great changes, thanks for sharing, I sure hope this happens.  

I don't see why the church wouldn't make some kind of announcement.  Its really the only way to partially try and control the message these days is to lead out with the original message.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was thinking about this the other day as I heard a wild rumor that there would be an easing up on the word of wisdom (getting rid of the prohibition on coffee and Tea)

It got me to wondering, if the change took effect on January 1st someone could drink coffee and tea on January first and be in compliance with the word of wisdom and qualify for a temple recommend. But what if the person drank coffee on Dec 31st, making them non-compliant to the WoW. Are they automatically worthy on Jan 1, or would they be required to repent prior to receiving a TR?

(This would be similar to someone not living the law of chastity, but then getting married- they would be required to repent first even though the behavior is now sanctioned)

throw in McDonalds that i'm eating right now! I got a coupon and don't need to feel guilty

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • 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? 
×
×
  • Create New...