Jump to content
HappyJackWagon

Rumors of Changes to Temple Worship

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

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?

Nope. I just assume that's what's being referenced, but I'd be the first to admit it's a guess since they didn't clarify it. I don't know about Packer on Buerger, but I wouldn't be surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/6/2019 at 10:33 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Ditto Bible, I presume.

How do you determine what the good things are, say, like determining what God has to say about baptism?

You are missing an important point.  This would be how important it is that the teachings of men be mingled with scripture.  With this combination, the full power of creativity can be unleashed.  

For example, Matthew 3:13-15

Matthew 3:13-15
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

It appears that baptism is required to fulfill righteousness!  Oh, no!

Never fear, a little creativity will solve our problem -- bring Paul into the fray: 

Ephesians 2:9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Baptism is a work!  Therefore, baptism is nice, but not a necessity!  You don't want to boast, do you?

See how easy that is?  You don't want to break the law, of course, but with just a little careful bending, Bob's yer uncle!  Just do what you please, like what old Korihor said:

Alma 30:17
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

Just ignore Jesus telling Nicodemus that without baptism you can't get into the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:1-21), Peter at Pentecost telling the people they needed to repent and be baptized (Acts 2), and Paul at Ephesus rebaptizing 12 or so brethren who said they had been baptized but who had never even heard of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:1-7).  All that is unimportant, because the philosophies of men must always trump the scriptures.

@SouthernMo, you might as well just proclaim the scriptures to be similar to the Pirates' Code:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2019 at 12:39 AM, JLHPROF said:

Now this I agree with to a point. The Lord absolutely raises the bar and teaches us line upon line as we are ready.  And, yes, it is vitally important that we demonstrate to him our willingness to follow his direction.

I just don't believe we are so amazing we are always moving in a constant linear progression as he raises the bar.  Not individually and not as a Church either.

You can't quantify these things.  Linear progression sounds like a graph, and would require numbers.  There are no numbers here.  Progress varies with individuals and with the Church as a whole.  Maybe I'm anomalous, but I have made more spiritual progression in the past five years than I have made in the twenty years before the previous five.  And I think the Church has, too.  Your perception might be clouded by your personal circumstances.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2019 at 4:06 AM, 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?

There was a time in my life many years ago when I was very spotty or completely noncompliant about tithing -- oh, was that time ever a mess -- but when I managed to get myself sorted out and wanted my temple recommend back, my bishop told me to just start paying a full tithing, and when I thought I was back on the bus, as it were, come speak to him again.  A few months later, I had my recommend and have kept it ever since.  There was no demand for "back tithing".  

The Church will not accept tithing from excommunicated members, but those who are still believers are urged (but not required) to put away their tithing in savings for after they get rebaptized.  Even then, there is no requirement for "back tithing", as far as I have ever heard.  Do we ask for "back tithing" from converts?  No, even though tithing is actually one of those commandments that preceded the law of Moses, and technically applies to everyone of the face of the earth, regardless of their church membership.  Even Abraham paid tithing (to Melchizedek, in fact).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

There are multiple ways for prophets to teach a principle (which is the language in the First Presidency statement). In addition to anything that they might have said (and which also ended up being recorded in a publicly available format), we have the lesson of what they have done. And we know with documentary certainty that the following Church presidents all made adjustments of some kind to temple ordinances:

  • Joseph Smith
  • Brigham Young
  • Wilford Woodruff
  • Heber J. Grant
  • David O. McKay
  • Spencer W. Kimball
  • Ezra Taft Benson
  • Gordon B. Hinckley
  • Thomas S. Monson

Because the exact date in one instance is not clear, this list may also need to include Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee.

I find this a pretty clear record of what the prophets have tried to teach us on this point.

Beyond this, the entire scriptural canon makes it clear that God is continually adjusting how He works with His children, how He communicates with them, and how He seeks to elevate and guide them. We can quibble over whether this or that adjustment is because we are progressing or regressing, or some other reason. I strongly suspect it's a combination of all of the above. But God reserves to Himself the right to individualise His interactions with His children by making real-time adjustments ... and always has. This is one of the central and fundamental functions of prophets.

This entire discussion has reminded me so strongly of what Margaret Barker has written about the Deuteronomist reformers and their war on prophets. As long as there were prophets, they argued, then things would perpetually change, often in completely unpredictable ways. Instead, they wanted a law, fixed and final, that wouldn't need any more adjusting. When their descendants returned to Judaea, they brought such a codified law with them, and we know how the Saviour felt about that. We also have a pretty clear account of how the Pharisees' love of their immutable law blinded them to the necessary reform that the Messiah brought with Him and which His authorised servants sought to continue after His resurrection.

That Christian leaders made unauthorised changes post-loss of authority in no way alters the reality that the apostles met, counselled together, sought revelation and continually fine-tuned both message and practice in the early Church, including eliminating requirements (such as circumcision) that Jewish Christians considered to be eternal, essential and unalterable.

If next month the Lord were to introduce a new covenant into the endowment asking me and other Saints to commit to study from Come, Follow Me every week, He would certainly have that right. It's His ordinance and His tool for shaping His Saints in ways that match particular historical moments.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/8/2019 at 4:52 AM, blueglass said:

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.  

This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine many years ago who had a bit of a "prepper" mentality and liked to pay tithing in "specie", i.e. with gold and silver bullion coins.  He claimed to be a full tithe-payer.  I suppose he was.  It seems that the coins would have to conveyed to SLC via Fedex or something, and the Church would have to convert them to cash at that end.  Or just hold onto them, for all I know.

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

@SouthernMo, you might as well just proclaim the scriptures to be similar to the Pirates' Code:

So is it your position that we must follow every single word of scripture and prophetic counsel or be lost/damned?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

Well, I'm glad you asked that.  And the following is my opinion, so please take it with as many grains of salt you wish...

Most of the endowment as presented now and in the past is a teaching tool that helps us learn the essentials, which are those things you covenant to keep sacred and not reveal except at a certain place.  If all we heard were these things it might be harder to relate to them, harder to learn them, and harder to remember them.  The historical background (the creation story and the Garden of Eden story) is useful, but not essential.  Ask yourself how three messengers who had not yet been incarnated, let alone resurrected, could physically interact with mortals before the resurrection (keeping in mind DC 129).  This is at least part of why I say that there are parts of the endowment which are non-essential, but useful for the teaching/learning process.  All that the recent change has done was cut back on certain non-essentials.

Note also, if you've been to the temple since January 1st, that it will now be much easier to introduce new languages to the temple presentation -- since now there will be no need to try to synchronize spoken words with the moving lips of the actors portraying characters in the temple film.  It will also be much easier to introduce changes to the endowment presentation itself.  One thing that may happen (I'm speculating here) is that temples in non-European countries may see subjects portraying characters in the "filmstrip" who correspond more closely to their own cultures.  Since elaborate film sets and many of the elaborate special effects required by the former high-production-value films will no longer be required.

I believe that the changes are not only well thought-out and designed to meet the societal challenges that have recently been introduced, but inspired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So is it your position that we must follow every single word of scripture and prophetic counsel or be lost/damned?

I'm not sure I have put it like that.  But I'm pretty sure we must keep the commandments and repent when we aren't doing so, because if we don't do that we definitely will be lost/damned.  Gospel 101.  Or do you think it's much more squishy than that? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm not sure I have put it like that.  But I'm pretty sure we must keep the commandments and repent when we aren't doing so, because if we don't do that we definitely will be lost/damned.  Gospel 101.  Or do you think it's much more squishy than that? 

 

 

Because you're not willing to put it as clearly/tersely as I did tells me that you might see some 'squishiness', albeit less than I do?

My perspective is that god gives us 'commandments' to teach us how to be happy, not to see if we will obey him.  So if I'm not happy keeping a commandment, maybe the commandment doesn't come from Him?

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, I'm glad you asked that.  And the following is my opinion, so please take it with as many grains of salt you wish...

Most of the endowment as presented now and in the past is a teaching tool that helps us learn the essentials, which are those things you covenant to keep sacred and not reveal except at a certain place.  If all we heard were these things it might be harder to relate to them, harder to learn them, and harder to remember them.  The historical background (the creation story and the Garden of Eden story) is useful, but not essential.  Ask yourself how three messengers who had not yet been incarnated, let alone resurrected, could physically interact with mortals before the resurrection (keeping in mind DC 129).  This is at least part of why I say that there are parts of the endowment which are non-essential, but useful for the teaching/learning process.  All that the recent change has done was cut back on certain non-essentials.

Note also, if you've been to the temple since January 1st, that it will now be much easier to introduce new languages to the temple presentation -- since now there will be no need to try to synchronize spoken words with the moving lips of the actors portraying characters in the temple film.  It will also be much easier to introduce changes to the endowment presentation itself.  One thing that may happen (I'm speculating here) is that temples in non-European countries may see subjects portraying characters in the "filmstrip" who correspond more closely to their own cultures.  Since elaborate film sets and many of the elaborate special effects required by the former high-production-value films will no longer be required.

I believe that the changes are not only well thought-out and designed to meet the societal challenges that have recently been introduced, but inspired.

I’m totally down with changes like that (though honestly I’m very biased to live sessions). I also understand that we need to update here and there to make sure we can get Temples everywhere effectively without the language barrier.

However I don’t think anyone has a problem with changing the story prensentation, it’s removing symbols or altering the wording of covenants that people (me included until I get confirmation from God) have some issue with. Both of those happened last time the endowment was updated, and they happened again this time. It doesn’t mean it’s bad or a sin or anything, but I know why people have issues with it.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Because you're not willing to put it as clearly/tersely as I did tells me that you might see some 'squishiness', albeit less than I do?

My perspective is that god gives us 'commandments' to teach us how to be happy, not to see if we will obey him.  So if I'm not happy keeping a commandment, maybe the commandment doesn't come from Him?

Well there are commandments that I’m no always happy to keep! God doesn’t necessarily give commandments to make you happy, at least in this life. He gives them so that we can better become like Him even if it’s really hard...

I mean I suppose all commandments are given are meant to make us happy EVENTUALLY...but perhaps not always in this world. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine many years ago who had a bit of a "prepper" mentality and liked to pay tithing in "specie", i.e. with gold and silver bullion coins.  He claimed to be a full tithe-payer.  I suppose he was.  It seems that the coins would have to conveyed to SLC via Fedex or something, and the Church would have to convert them to cash at that end.  Or just hold onto them, for all I know.

I love the idea that gold and silver are going to have value with everything collapses. It would help in a national collapse but most of the preppers live in the United States and if the dollar goes so does the world economy. If you want to be rich at the end of the world stockpile cigarettes and toilet paper.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

My perspective is that god gives us 'commandments' to teach us how to be happy, not to see if we will obey him.  So if I'm not happy keeping a commandment, maybe the commandment doesn't come from Him?

Many of the things that have brought me the most happiness were not my favourites at first. But I think you're broadly right that commandments are not arbitrary tests of our obedience; instead, they are what a perfect Being shares regarding what has brought Him a fullness of joy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There are multiple ways for prophets to teach a principle (which is the language in the First Presidency statement). In addition to anything that they might have said (and which also ended up being recorded in a publicly available format), we have the lesson of what they have done. And we know with documentary certainty that the following Church presidents all made adjustments of some kind to temple ordinances:

  • Joseph Smith
  • Brigham Young
  • Wilford Woodruff
  • Heber J. Grant
  • David O. McKay
  • Spencer W. Kimball
  • Ezra Taft Benson
  • Gordon B. Hinckley
  • Thomas S. Monson

Because the exact date in one instance is not clear, this list may also need to include Joseph Fielding Smith or Harold B. Lee.

I find this a pretty clear record of what the prophets have tried to teach us on this point.

Beyond this, the entire scriptural canon makes it clear that God is continually adjusting how He works with His children, how He communicates with them, and how He seeks to elevate and guide them. We can quibble over whether this or that adjustment is because we are progressing or regressing, or some other reason. I strongly suspect it's a combination of all of the above. But God reserves to Himself the right to individualise His interactions with His children by making real-time adjustments ... and always has. This is one of the central and fundamental functions of prophets.

This entire discussion has reminded me so strongly of what Margaret Barker has written about the Deuteronomist reformers and their war on prophets. As long as there were prophets, they argued, then things would perpetually change, often in completely unpredictable ways. Instead, they wanted a law, fixed and final, that wouldn't need any more adjusting. When their descendants returned to Judaea, they brought such a codified law with them, and we know how the Saviour felt about that. We also have a pretty clear account of how the Pharisees' love of their immutable law blinded them to the necessary reform that the Messiah brought with Him and which His authorised servants sought to continue after His resurrection.

That Christian leaders made unauthorised changes post-loss of authority in no way alters the reality that the apostles met, counselled together, sought revelation and continually fine-tuned both message and practice in the early Church, including eliminating requirements (such as circumcision) that Jewish Christians considered to be eternal, essential and unalterable.

If next month the Lord were to introduce a new covenant into the endowment asking me and other Saints to commit to study from Come, Follow Me every week, He would certainly have that right. It's His ordinance and His tool for shaping His Saints in ways that match particular historical moments.

I haven’t checked all the references so please point out if I’m wrong. However in all the instances where God has chosen to alter a covenant or ordinance (and you’re right in that He has a handful of times), He has always had a prophet/apostles give a reason as to why. Usually it seemed that whatever covenant or ordinance it was had been fulfilled, like the Law of Moses.

God does update things, that is why we have prophets, however I think the reason people take issue with stuff like this is that  there doesn’t seem to be any explantion. Plus the dispensation head Joseph stayed on more then one occasion that the ordinances cannot be altered.

I do agree with you but the main issue is not whether God can or has changed ordinances/covenants in the past but is the current change authorized and if so, why? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Well there are commandments that I’m no always happy to keep! God doesn’t necessarily give commandments to make you happy, at least in this life. He gives them so that we can better become like Him even if it’s really hard...

I mean I suppose all commandments are given are meant to make us happy EVENTUALLY...but perhaps not always in this world. 

I don't have enough faith to keep commandments that seem to me nonsensical just in the hope that I'll get some kind of celestial reward because I obeyed.  I may go to hell because I don't have that faith that Mormons are supposed to have.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I love the idea that gold and silver are going to have value with everything collapses. It would help in a national collapse but most of the preppers live in the United States and if the dollar goes so does the world economy. If you want to be rich at the end of the world stockpile cigarettes and toilet paper.

No way.  Sorghum is where it's going to be when the Rothschilds and the Illuminati finally put their plans into play.  I also own a sizable investment in a tinfoil hat company.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

However in all the instances where God has chosen to alter a covenant or ordinance (and you’re right in that He has a handful of times), He has always had a prophet/apostles give a reason as to why. Usually it seemed that whatever covenant or ordinance it was had been fulfilled, like the Law of Moses.

I think you're describing an exception rather than a rule, especially when it comes to temple ordinances. And I think we have evidence that Jesus's claims that He wasn't trying just to destroy the law, just fulfil it, sounded like weasel words to the Pharisees. What exactly does fulfilling a law mean, actually? It was obvious to them that He was really just throwing away their baby.

Quote

Plus the dispensation head Joseph stayed on more then one occasion that the ordinances cannot be altered.

Even as he did so. Have you ever compared Kirtland washings/anointings with those from the Nauvoo period, as just one example?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I don't have enough faith to keep commandments that seem to me nonsensical just in the hope that I'll get some kind of celestial reward because I obeyed.  I may go to hell because I don't have that faith that Mormons are supposed to have.

I’ve never heard of a nonsensical commandment but alright haha all commandments I’ve heard and attempt to keep are rational, especially when trying to  look at it with Heavens eyes. However just because it makes sense to me doesn’t mean I’m happy to keep it, or that it’s easy to keep. 

I highly doubt Abraham was thrilled to go try to kill his son on the mountain or perform circumcision that late in life.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you're describing an exception rather than a rule, especially when it comes to temple ordinances. And I think we have evidence that Jesus's claims that He wasn't trying just to destroy the law, just fulfil it, sounded like weasel words to the Pharisees. What exactly does fulfilling a law mean, actually? It was obvious to them that He was really just throwing away their baby.

Even as he did so. Have you ever compared Kirtland washings/anointings with those from the Nauvoo period, as just one example?

I’m a little confused actually. What is the exception I’m pointing out? Haha

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m totally down with changes like that (though honestly I’m very biased to live sessions). I also understand that we need to update here and there to make sure we can get Temples everywhere effectively without the language barrier.

However I don’t think anyone has a problem with changing the story prensentation, it’s removing symbols or altering the wording of covenants that people (me included until I get confirmation from God) have some issue with. Both of those happened last time the endowment was updated, and they happened again this time. It doesn’t mean it’s bad or a sin or anything, but I know why people have issues with it.

Change is a constant.  It also occurs because of reasons, not in a vacuum.

Take the part of the endowment where you used to move your hands in a particular way while saying a particular thing.  There were people uncomfortable with it.  Because they didn't understand it, for the most part.  I understood it, but many others just didn't "get" it.  It has been mentioned in this thread that once upon many centuries and perhaps millennia ago, people would promise things with gestures indicating sincerity, and the seriousness of their sincerity.  For example, an medieval Norman-English lord named William de Braose once promised to support the cause of an allied nobleman, and he sealed his promise by swearing on a knife that he would fulfill his promise.  In other words, he was saying, if I fail to do as I promise, may this knife kill me.  People used to take promises much more seriously.  Where do you think the old phrase "I cross my heart and hope to die" in connection with assuring someone that you're telling the truth comes from? But we don't do this kind of thing any longer.  It is something that society as a whole does not comprehend.  Should we continue to do it, regardless?  Should we be like the Old Catholics, who just can't get past the idea of using the local language in the Mass, instead of Latin?  

And in case you missed it, the wording of one particular covenant was changed subtly so as to exclude same-sex marriage, where before one could point at the wording and say, well, same-sex marriage is "legal and lawful" now, so...  These things are done for reasons, and the reasons in this case are valid.

I tend to assume the good faith and the inspiration of the Brethren.  However, there are those members who, when "Ward Teaching" was changed to "Home Teaching", just couldn't deal with it until years had past.  There were some (and I knew one) who just couldn't deal with blacks getting the priesthood.  There were some, who when Jesus said some difficult things, just couldn't deal with it and walked away from Him.  See the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Change is a constant.  It also occurs because of reasons, not in a vacuum.

Take the part of the endowment where you used to move your hands in a particular way while saying a particular thing.  There were people uncomfortable with it.  Because they didn't understand it, for the most part.  I understood it, but many others just didn't "get" it.  It has been mentioned in this thread that once upon many centuries and perhaps millennia ago, people would promise things with gestures indicating sincerity, and the seriousness of their sincerity.  For example, an medieval Norman-English lord named William de Braose once promised to support the cause of an allied nobleman, and he sealed his promise by swearing on a knife that he would fulfill his promise.  In other words, he was saying, if I fail to do as I promise, may this knife kill me.  People used to take promises much more seriously.  Where do you think the old phrase "I cross my heart and hope to die" in connection with assuring someone that you're telling the truth comes from? But we don't do this kind of thing any longer.  It is something that society as a whole does not comprehend.  Should we continue to do it, regardless?  Should we be like the Old Catholics, who just can't get past the idea of using the local language in the Mass, instead of Latin?  

And in case you missed it, the wording of one particular covenant was changed subtly so as to exclude same-sex marriage, where before one could point at the wording and say, well, same-sex marriage is "legal and lawful" now, so...  These things are done for reasons, and the reasons in this case are valid.

I tend to assume the good faith and the inspiration of the Brethren.  However, there are those members who, when "Ward Teaching" was changed to "Home Teaching", just couldn't deal with it until years had past.  There were some (and I knew one) who just couldn't deal with blacks getting the priesthood.  There were some, who when Jesus said some difficult things, just couldn't deal with it and walked away from Him.  See the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? ... From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

 

I remember the saying, and I dont know who said it “if symbolism has no meaning to the receiver, then is it really necessary ?” And I honestly can’t answer that effectively when it comes to temple rites. Personally I Love the rich symbols of the temple rituals, even the ones that were removed long ago. It gives me a physical puzzle, like the scriptures, to go home with and decode through prayer, pondering and researching.

However to the general population, I sorta understand why things have to be altered. The trick is changing the symbols without changing the ordinance, that’s where people have issue. I always, however, give the leaders of the church the initial benefit of the doubt before I get a confirmation from the Lord, simply because i believe they are inspired! I just don’t believe they’re perfect 100% of the time (obviously haha).

I however do see the other sides point of view. 

I know God will reveal all things to those who are righteous, but I still wish I could have been endowed in that lovely red brick store. It may not have been “arranged right” but the knowledge that must of been pouring out over the roughly 8 hours it took (at least that’s what I remember reading) must have been incredible and detailed.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m a little confused actually. What is the exception I’m pointing out?

That God always explains His reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That God always explains His reasons. 

I can’t think of a time where a major alteration in ordinances and covenants has not been accompanied by an explanation. Obviously He doesn’t explain everything He does, but when it comes to those two things He seems to be extremely consistent in scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It has been mentioned in this thread that once upon many centuries and perhaps millennia ago, people would promise things with gestures indicating sincerity, and the seriousness of their sincerity.  

I think we dropped the ball, so to speak, once we abandoned the Old Testament custom of swearing oaths whilst cupping testicles. 

No doubt this was just to accommodate radical feminists ...

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 4

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...