Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Does anyone know how people are suppose to pay back tithing in order to receive their recommend? I was thinking if I were to somehow have just enough belief to want to go back how much money should I be scrounging up to do that. How does that work, or should I put this in the tithing thread?

Although "back tithing" may not be exactly the right way to think about it, functionally it does happen in a way for many people. Usually people who pay "back tithing" are regular tithe payers who maybe got behind a couple of months or something and want to maintain their full tithe status for the year so they'll pay a larger lump sum. Technically, there isn't a time frame for when tithing is "due". Some people pay weekly, some monthly, quarterly, annually etc. If they pay annually, they are just paying, not necessarily paying "Back" tithing for the previous 12 months. Maintaining the full-tithe status may help someone not have  a waiting period before qualifying again for a TR.

For someone who hasn't been a tithe payer for a while, a bishopric shouldn't ask them to pay back tithing. They should ask them to start paying, but like others have said, there may be a time period of waiting involved so the bishopric can see a history/habit of paying tithing before a TR is given.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 1/5/2019 at 12:40 AM, Calm said:

Funny how different people see things.  I see the core part being the doctrine and actual covenants.

Calm, you should know that I am not denying those aspects either. My own statement was simply getting at Brigham Young's famous statement, and which is in the endowment itself (haven't been to the new one yet though so I am not personally sure whether that statement is still in there).

Edited by CMZ

Share this post


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

Although "back tithing" may not be exactly the right way to think about it, functionally it does happen in a way for many people. Usually people who pay "back tithing" are regular tithe payers who maybe got behind a couple of months or something and want to maintain their full tithe status for the year so they'll pay a larger lump sum. Technically, there isn't a time frame for when tithing is "due". Some people pay weekly, some monthly, quarterly, annually etc. If they pay annually, they are just paying, not necessarily paying "Back" tithing for the previous 12 months. Maintaining the full-tithe status may help someone not have  a waiting period before qualifying again for a TR.

For someone who hasn't been a tithe payer for a while, a bishopric shouldn't ask them to pay back tithing. They should ask them to start paying, but like others have said, there may be a time period of waiting involved so the bishopric can see a history/habit of paying tithing before a TR is given.

That’s not the definition of back tithing, which would mean making up for the months missed in the past, not just resolving to pay it from the present moment forward. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 11:18 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Back tithing'? If I were in your bishopric, I'd encourage you to start tithing again and then come speak to me once you've demonstrably re-established the habit.

The bishop decides the time period?  3mo, 6mo, 1 year?  I once asked my bishop and he said 6months, but he didn't know why he selected this time period.  Another time, when a member paid 5% the year prior to recommend expiration he gave him some time 1mo to make back payments to get on track so he could go to his brother's wedding.  No one is expected to pay at a specific interval, and there is no specific definition of income.  Our stake president in our ward always paid in-kind and we never saw when he paid tithing when I worked as a financial clerk.  Printing the end of the year statement had no information on it.  In one case a family in our ward felt they could not go to the temple because he was a medical student and they lived off of student loans.  Did they have "income" to pay for food, housing, internet and other utilities?  Sure, at 7 - 20% interest rate.  Do we call that income?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

In one case a family in our ward felt they could not go to the temple because he was a medical student and they lived off of student loans.  Did they have "income" to pay for food, housing, internet and other utilities?  Sure, at 7 - 20% interest rate.  Do we call that income?  

I don't!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I know people will roll their eyes at that, but I want to engage it seriously since it more or less is a very old philosophical question. The classic example from Greek philosophy is the ship of Theseus. The idea is that over time a ship has various elements replaced - boards, mast, sails, etc. When is the ship still the same ship? Different thinkers all gave different answers. Some though it slowly lost its identity. Others thought there was no identity. Still others thought the identity wasn't in the material but in an idea. And so forth.

Really you're asking the same thing. I assume you'd be fine with translating an ordinance from English into French. But not everyone is. (Remember the controversy when Catholics started doing Mass in languages other than Latin?)  So I'd assume you're fine with small changes. I also assume you'd be fine with someone missing limbs or fingers still doing the ordinances or someone unable to speak doing the ordinances. At that point the question is pretty much exactly the same as the ship of Theseus. The question then becomes when is too much change too much? You're suggesting all these changes are too much, but it's not at all clear what principle you're using to suggest that.

While I don't want to embrace platonism, the platonists did make a good point that it wasn't in the details ("the accidents") that identity lay. Rather it was in some idea that was not coming from any particular person. While I'd reject the platonic One, in this case I think the idea that what gives the ordinance its identity is its relationship to God and his thinking on the matter. That might seem a dodge, just like it might seem a dodge for the platonist to say the ship of Theseus' identity wasn't in the boards but in some immaterial idea of the ship of Theseus. However note how this solution works. It allows for various change but what gauges the change is God's authority in that it is up to him to make changes, not man. It also explains the apostasy and the changing of ordinances there since the real issue is unauthorized changes that slowly move ordinances away. (Or in the case of the endowment radically transforming them into gnosticism or removing them entirely in the various surviving forms of Christianity)

The press release says:

"Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments".

Which prophetic quotes are they referring to?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The press release says:

"Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments".

Which prophetic quotes are they referring to?

 

i can think of Pres. McKay, Joseph Smith and I think George F. Richards, I don't know they need to be endowments though as the full statement is Over these many centuries, details associated with temple work have been adjusted periodically, including language, methods of construction, communication, and record-keeping. Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to His servants.

So, "such adjustments" include language....

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The press release says:

"Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments".

Which prophetic quotes are they referring to?

 

The way the thing is worded it clumps language, record keeping, and construction into one heap of “adjustments”. However I never recall anyone saying anything about adjustments to the actual ordinances being “never ending”. There is that one Brigham Young quote about Joseph saying the Endowment wasn’t arranged right, but you’d think Brigham would have arranged it right after they got to the valley.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

The press release says:

"Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments".

Which prophetic quotes are they referring to?

 

Maybe this one:

"And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.... These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.168)

Apparently Adam and his representatives did a bad job revealing the ordinances first to Joseph and had to come back repeatedly to different prophets to get them to where they will be the same forever and ever.

Wonder if they got the message right this visit....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

The way the thing is worded it clumps language, record keeping, and construction into one heap of “adjustments”. However I never recall anyone saying anything about adjustments to the actual ordinances being “never ending”. There is that one Brigham Young quote about Joseph saying the Endowment wasn’t arranged right, but you’d think Brigham would have arranged it right after they got to the valley.

There's the quotes Duncan posted Friday. While discussing the Kirtland temple, I think the principle behind the teaching seems relevant.

  • On the evening after the dedication of the Temple, hundreds of the brethren received the ministering of angels, saw the light and personages of angels, and bore testimony of it. They spake in new tongues, and had a greater manifestation of the power of God than that described by Luke on the day of Pentecost. Yet a great portion of the persons who saw these manifestations, in a few years, and some of them in a few weeks, apostatized. If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle farther than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it. He tried at Jerusalem; He tried away back before the flood; He tried in the days of Moses; and He had tried, from time to time, to find a people to whom He could reveal the law of salvation, and He never could fully accomplish it; and He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey." JD 2:214-215

The problem is, as Buerger's old article noted, there were continued changes including infamous lecture at the veil in 1877 although that doesn't appear to have lasted long or even made its way to all temples. There were also changes advocated by Young and others yet never implemented. We know there were significant changes harmonizing different "modes of ceremonies" in 1893 - presumably variations at different temples since the ceremony wasn't even written down until 1877 and there were many variations at that time. While I suspect the ceremony was most stable during Young's life, it wasn't completely stable. After Young's death it most certainly wasn't stable.

As I was at pains to point out in the ship of Theseus what "same" means is itself under question. I completely get why those already skeptical make a point of this. However I don't think there's particularly strong ground here - especially for more fundamentalist types who are the most apt to lock onto the fixed languages - everything exactly the same issue.  

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe this one:

"And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.... These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.168)

Apparently Adam and his representatives did a bad job revealing the ordinances first to Joseph and had to come back repeatedly to different prophets to get them to where they will be the same forever and ever.

Wonder if they got the message right this visit....

So I assume if you're taking that to entail things exactly the same that you think Joseph thought Adam spoke English or that these ordinances should all be performed in Adamaic which Joseph didn't know? If not, then doesn't that undermine the reading you're making of it?

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe this one:

"And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.... These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.168)

Apparently Adam and his representatives did a bad job revealing the ordinances first to Joseph and had to come back repeatedly to different prophets to get them to where they will be the same forever and ever.

Wonder if they got the message right this visit....

Again, there’s a way to reconcile your quote from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith with the current presentation of the endowment, and this is it: The Lord may have inspired His servants to truncate and modify the presentation of the endowment to be commensurate with the general degree of righteousness, spiritual preparedness and receptivity of today’s saints. It could be that because of the pervasive pernicious influence of feminism on a significant number of the current members of the Church, and the sad trend of more and more members finding it easy to speak negatively of the Church and its leaders, some of the more meaty components of the endowment had to be withdrawn from view, while leaving enough intact to be still be viable and edifying for the participants and acceptable to the Lord. What else is the Lord supposed to do when the Church at large is no longer prepared to receive the deeper and more difficult to digest meat of the gospel without incessant carping and griping issuing forth from the lips of too many?

The joyful reaction to the new endowment by not a few of the feminist-oriented Church members, at least partially, validates the above possibility. I say this because much of the LDS feminist clamoring for change is likely a modern-day example of how, as the Nephite prophet Jacob warned, the Lord’s people are too often prone to “look beyond the mark,” hoping for changes that they think will be good for the Church, but in reality will only turn out to be counterproductive. Jacob testified there were many in the Holy Land, where his family once dwelt, who obsessively looked beyond the mark and were finally rewarded by the Lord with revelations of confusion and perplexity that confounded them. Could it be the same with us today? For now some are left in confusion as to whether or not the righteous and worthy man is still supposed to be the head of the wife, in the same way the husband is expected to be in subjection to the Lord who is the head of every man. Like the old saying goes, “better watch what you hope for.”

But I must say that in spite of everything I’ve said, I also believe the changes are of the Lord, and that those who remain unshaken and steadfast in their testimonies of the prophesied ultimate triumph of the Church will not be adversely affected by the fact that the Lord has inspired the leaders of the Church to begin to withhold sacred things from an increasingly wicked world. If I were you, I’d calm down and be at peace in the realization that the God of wisdom is still at the helm, and that He knows how to win. And also know this, the fullness of the endowment, as it is known and understood in heaven, has not and will not ever change. It’s not the Lord’s fault when his people begin to choke and gag on the meatier doctrines of His kingdom. What else can He reasonably be expected do than to begin to withhold sacred things that the unenlightened would otherwise esteem as dross that should be trampled underfoot?

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Again, there’s a way to reconcile your quote from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith with the current presentation of the endowment, and this is it: The Lord may have inspired His servants to truncate and modify the presentation of the endowment to be commensurate with the general degree of righteousness, spiritual preparedness and receptivity of today’s saints. It could be that because of the pervasive pernicious influence of feminism on a significant number of the current members of the Church, and the sad trend of more and more members finding it easy to speak negatively of the Church and its leaders, some of the more meaty components of the endowment had to be withdrawn from view, while leaving enough intact to be still be viable and edifying for the participants and acceptable to the Lord. What else is the Lord supposed to do when the Church at large is no longer prepared to receive the deeper and more difficult to digest meat of the gospel without incessant carping and griping issuing forth from the lips of too many?

The joyful reaction to the new endowment by not a few of the feminist-oriented Church members, at least partially, validates the above possibility. I say this because much of the LDS feminist clamoring for change is likely a modern-day example of how, as the Nephite prophet Jacob warned, the Lord’s people are too often prone to “look beyond the mark,” hoping for changes that they think will be good for the Church, but in reality will only turn out to be counterproductive. Jacob testified there were many in the Holy Land, where his family once dwelt, who obsessively looked beyond the mark and were finally rewarded by the Lord with revelations of confusion and perplexity that confounded them. Could it be the same with us today? For now some are left in confusion as to whether or not the righteous and worthy man is still supposed to be the head of the wife, in the same way the husband is expected to be in subjection to the Lord who is the head of every man. Like the old saying goes, “better watch what you hope for.”

But I must say that in spite of everything I’ve said, I also believe the changes are of the Lord, and that those who remain unshaken and steadfast in their testimonies of the prophesied ultimate triumph of the Church will not be adversely affected by the fact that the Lord has inspired the leaders of the Church to begin to withhold sacred things from an increasingly wicked world. If I were you, I’d calm down and be at peace in the realization that the God of wisdom is still at the helm, and that He knows how to win. And also know this, the fullness of the endowment, as it is known and understood in heaven, has not and will not ever change. It’s not the Lord’s fault when his people begin to choke and gag on the meatier doctrines of His kingdom. What else can He reasonably be expected do than to begin to withhold sacred things that the unenlightened would otherwise esteem as dross that should be trampled underfoot?

This reminds me why I've missed your posts.  😊

This is entirely a possibility.  The Lord does change and revoke eternal laws - whenever the people are unwilling or incapable of obeying them.  The blessings are withheld.

God is at the helm.  The assumption is that changes are made due to progression.  Could definitely be the opposite when you compare society today with the society that had the full endowment.  God may well be acting from wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

The way the thing is worded it clumps language, record keeping, and construction into one heap of “adjustments”. However I never recall anyone saying anything about adjustments to the actual ordinances being “never ending”. There is that one Brigham Young quote about Joseph saying the Endowment wasn’t arranged right, but you’d think Brigham would have arranged it right after they got to the valley.

How could he, or why would he, he was totally on board with the wording at the time. I guess the church is keeping up with the times. I heard from somewhere the other day that the Catholic church is probably making some big changes within 5 years, maybe sooner. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How could he, or why would he, he was totally on board with the wording at the time. I guess the church is keeping up with the times. 

👍

Share this post


Link to post

I believe Joseph Smith thought or maybe had some, revelation on how to instill the temple as a vehicle to exalt man. And I think he took a lot from the Bible. In the Bible the women are second class, or are taught the men are the head of the family, therefore the reason the temple was like it was. But everyone always knew that right? And therefore, my reasons for not always putting a lot of stock in the Bible being completely the word of God. Now we are seeing how those men's thoughts on the matter that helped write the Bible aren't always right. Because in many cases it's taken too far, almost to abuse or to abuse of women. 

I've had very mixed feelings about the new change, one one hand it's the best thing ever, on the other, why wasn't the church leaders privy to the truth, that women have just as much of a conduit to God, she doesn't need a man to be with God. Of course, step back, maybe she still needs a man in this church to be exalted, okay back to square one. Or not, because most religions don't believe in exaltation or becoming Gods. 

Wow, I'm rambling. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe this one:

"And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them.... These angels are under the direction of Michael or Adam, who acts under the direction of the Lord. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.168)

Apparently Adam and his representatives did a bad job revealing the ordinances first to Joseph and had to come back repeatedly to different prophets to get them to where they will be the same forever and ever.

Wonder if they got the message right this visit....

I’m curious in 50 years how much will be changed (assuming the Lord doesn’t show up). The last major alteration was only 29 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe Joseph Smith thought or maybe had some, revelation on how to instill the temple as a vehicle to exalt man. And I think he took a lot from the Bible. In the Bible the women are second class, or are taught the men are the head of the family, therefore the reason the temple was like it was. But everyone always knew that right? And therefore, my reasons for not always putting a lot of stock in the Bible being completely the word of God. Now we are seeing how those men's thoughts on the matter that helped write the Bible aren't always right. Because in many cases it's taken too far, almost to abuse or to abuse of women. 

I've had very mixed feelings about the new change, one one hand it's the best thing ever, on the other, why wasn't the church leaders privy to the truth, that women have just as much of a conduit to God, she doesn't need a man to be with God. Of course, step back, maybe she still needs a man in this church to be exalted, okay back to square one. Or not, because most religions don't believe in exaltation or becoming Gods. 

Wow, I'm rambling. Sorry.

I think Valerie Hudsons article The Two Trees helps explain why the temple speaks of men and women in the ways they do.  Some of it being that Eve represented mankind in the physical aspects of our existence and Adam the spiritual side.  Then the symbolism that went with both.  We aren't as good at thinking through symbols or used to them.  Unfortunately, if the symbols are not pondered and explored they can lead people to think they are speaking negatively of women.  In a generation that basically has to interact with gadgets and numerous pieces of information, their attention span is different.  I find that with my own kids.  The temple changes, if I can get into the temple, will probably be appreciated by me.  The sessions were all full last Friday and Saturday.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I think Valerie Hudsons article The Two Trees helps explain why the temple speaks of men and women in the ways they do.  Some of it being that Eve represented mankind in the physical aspects of our existence and Adam the spiritual side.  Then the symbolism that went with both.  We aren't as good at thinking through symbols or used to them.  Unfortunately, if the symbols are not pondered and explored they can lead people to think they are speaking negatively of women.  In a generation that basically has to interact with gadgets and numerous pieces of information, their attention span is different.  I find that with my own kids.  The temple changes, if I can get into the temple, will probably be appreciated by me.  The sessions were all full last Friday and Saturday.  

Cassler's midrash (fan fiction) reminds me of the Armenian Adam literature. Should we all send in new screen plays and see which one they like the most?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m curious in 50 years how much will be changed (assuming the Lord doesn’t show up). The last major alteration was only 29 years ago. 

Just track the survey schedules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This reminds me why I've missed your posts.  😊

This is entirely a possibility.  The Lord does change and revoke eternal laws - whenever the people are unwilling or incapable of obeying them.  The blessings are withheld.

God is at the helm.  The assumption is that changes are made due to progression.  Could definitely be the opposite when you compare society today with the society that had the full endowment.  God may well be acting from wisdom.

As long as Adam was correctly baptized by full immersion I think we will be ok.  Moses 6:64

With the exception of one word we have held tightly to the baptismal ordinance 3Nephi11:25.  Temple initiatory washing ?  Still a rough draft I suppose.

 

 

Edited by blueglass

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There's the quotes Duncan posted Friday. While discussing the Kirtland temple, I think the principle behind the teaching seems relevant.

  • On the evening after the dedication of the Temple, hundreds of the brethren received the ministering of angels, saw the light and personages of angels, and bore testimony of it. They spake in new tongues, and had a greater manifestation of the power of God than that described by Luke on the day of Pentecost. Yet a great portion of the persons who saw these manifestations, in a few years, and some of them in a few weeks, apostatized. If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle farther than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it. He tried at Jerusalem; He tried away back before the flood; He tried in the days of Moses; and He had tried, from time to time, to find a people to whom He could reveal the law of salvation, and He never could fully accomplish it; and He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey." JD 2:214-215

The problem is, as Buerger's old article noted, there were continued changes including infamous lecture at the veil in 1877 although that doesn't appear to have lasted long or even made its way to all temples. There were also changes advocated by Young and others yet never implemented. We know there were significant changes harmonizing different "modes of ceremonies" in 1893 - presumably variations at different temples since the ceremony wasn't even written down until 1877 and there were many variations at that time. While I suspect the ceremony was most stable during Young's life, it wasn't completely stable. After Young's death it most certainly wasn't stable.

As I was at pains to point out in the ship of Theseus what "same" means is itself under question. I completely get why those already skeptical make a point of this. However I don't think there's particularly strong ground here - especially for more fundamentalist types who are the most apt to lock onto the fixed languages - everything exactly the same issue.  

So I assume if you're taking that to entail things exactly the same that you think Joseph thought Adam spoke English or that these ordinances should all be performed in Adamaic which Joseph didn't know? If not, then doesn't that undermine the reading you're making of it?

Didn't Packer come down hard on Buergers papers?  I remember something related to taking "muddy boots into the temple"?  It's a good quote, just cant remember exactly.  

Are you confident that  JD 2:214-215 is the quote the press release is referencing?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

A It could be that because of the pervasive pernicious influence of feminism on a significant number of the current members of the Church, and the sad trend of more and more members finding it easy to speak negatively of the Church and its leaders, some of the more meaty components of the endowment had to be withdrawn from view, while leaving enough intact to be still be viable and edifying for the participants and acceptable to the Lord. What else is the Lord supposed to do when the Church at large is no longer prepared to receive the deeper and more difficult to digest meat of the gospel without incessant carping and griping issuing forth from the lips of too many?

 

What do you think the impact of the "pernicious influence of feminism" has been on the Mormon church?

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 6:49 PM, JLHPROF said:

I've come to the conclusion that either most members or I don't know what an ordinance is.

Because apparently we can change every single part of our rites and yet "the ordinance" has stayed the same.

We could completely redesign them but keep the names and the average member wouldn't bat an eye.  Give us another hundred years and our ordinances may look more like the Catholic or Protestant ones.

The "rites" are not important.  The covenants are what are important.

If you're complaining about the recent changes (I know you are), then it's a good thing you weren't alive 100 years ago as compared to what they looked like 40 years ago.  For one things, you'd be complaining bitterly about garments that have short sleeves and legs, and wishing for the string ties to come back.  Who needs buttons?  For that matter, do away with the audio-visual production and go back to live actors!  

The wife and I were at the temple today and found nothing to complain about in the changes to the endowment.  The essentials remain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The "rites" are not important.  The covenants are what are important.

If you're complaining about the recent changes (I know you are), then it's a good thing you weren't alive 100 years ago as compared to what they looked like 40 years ago.  For one things, you'd be complaining bitterly about garments that have short sleeves and legs, and wishing for the string ties to come back.  Who needs buttons?  For that matter, do away with the audio-visual production and go back to live actors!  

The wife and I were at the temple today and found nothing to complain about in the changes to the endowment.  The essentials remain.

 

If "essentials" remain, that must mean that there are parts of the endowment that are not essential, right? What are the other non-essentials? Can you identify them? Why would there be non-essentials in the endowment when it is taught that the endowment is literally, among other things, an endowment of God's knowledge. Why would non-essential teachings ever be included unless they were once thought to be essential?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      Hi all-
      How can I get tickets to the Salta Argentina Temple Dedication?
      Emailed my wife's mission pres, now a GA, with no luck.
      Descamisados! Mi compañeros!
      Otherwise I'll have to ask that you not cry for me, Argentina
    • By nuclearfuels
      Was chatting at Scouts last night - RIP and good riddance BSA - with an expert on Russia.
      Asked him 'bout the announced Temple in Russia; he thinks St. Petersburg; I don't know as I dont' study that country much,,,
      He said it could be 10+ years away like when Kiev Temple was announced
      Curious as to if Church HQ's legal team advised President Nelson or Bishop Davies to not announce the Russia Temple until a location had been selected and approved.  
      Laughed at the response to the lawyers: Thank you for your advice.  This meeting is over.
      -
      Curious as to what steps are in place before a Temple is announced (site acquisition, govt permitting approval, etc.)?
      Also I'd like to attend the dedication but not sure who would sponsor my Visa as a US passport won't get you in Russia, especially not after their recent laws regarding foreigners proselytizing? 
×
×
  • Create New...